Editor’s Note:  On Friday morning (Aug 10) we published a blog article by Carl Trueman on Seminaries and Spiritual Formation.  During the day the Ref21 blog lit up with response from Sean Lucas, a brief rejoinder from Carl, a restatement by Sean, and final thoughts(?) by Carl. Since it appears to have ended, we are combining the last four posts together for your convenience.

What are Seminaries For?

Sean Lucas

I have enjoyed the exchange between my fellow church historians (and pastors) Carl Trueman and Michael Haykin on spiritual formation and seminaries. I wanted to make one brief observation on the exchange and it centers on what seminaries are for and what ministers need.

One of the major tensions in theological education over the years has been whether seminaries are graduate theological schools or whether they are training centers for ministers and those who serve beside them. That tension is especially acute at schools where PhD programs take up a significant portion of faculty load and those students make up a large part of the student body. Even when seminary faculty view the PhD program as an extension of ministerial training, because the PhD is oriented toward the academic guild, the overarching ethos of the seminary tends to move away from ministerial training toward professional knowledge.

But at schools where Master of Divinity students are the majority–as was the case at Covenant Seminary when I was in academic administration from 2005-09–the purpose of the seminary is relatively clear. At Covenant, we were clear that our purpose was to “train God’s servants to walk in his grace, minister God’s Word, and equip God’s people–all for God’s mission.” And it was that first part–“walk in his grace”–that was key to all the rest.

In other words, if the seminary’s purpose really is to train ministers and those who serve as ministerial assistants–youth workers, CE directors, music ministry directors–then the seminary has as one of its primary responsibilities spiritual formation, assisting these future church servants to learn what it means to walk with God and in his grace in the context of a ministerial life. Pastors and church leaders who are not walking with God inevitably falter in ministering God’s Word and equipping God’s people. As Robert Murray McChyene noted, “The greatest need of my people is my personal holiness.”

At Covenant, we had two major emphases to assist with our students developing personal holiness. As far as I know, Covenant was one of the very few seminaries that embedded faculty-led small groups as part of a first-year core course. In our “Covenant Theology” class, which serves as a interdisciplinary theological introduction course that extends through the fall and spring semester, students are assigned to “covenant groups” led by faculty members that gather weekly for prayer, discussion, and discipleship. This type of intentional mentoring–which is not an add-on, but at the heart of the curriculum–assists students in working through a range of spiritual formation issues. My understanding is that Covenant is continuing to work towards embedding such small groups throughout the MDiv program to serve the purpose of spiritual formation and reflection in the context of trusted relationships.

Chapel services were another major emphasis. Chapel was not an add-on, but the center of our life together. As dean, I tried to make sure that we had a maximum number of students on campus around our chapel services; and they were extremely well-attended by our students, staff, and faculty. And special emphasis days–such as our regular “days of prayer”–would involve the entire campus community shutting down and joining for prayer. Regular patterns of worship–not just in the context of the local congregation, but in the context of future ministers (like a presbytery, for example)–are necessary to sustain the ministerial life.

There were other things that we did as faculty members in our individual classes to develop and measure spiritual formation. And that was because we believed that the seminary’s purpose had to match what ministers need in order for them to sustain ministry. Certainly, pastors need Greek and Hebrew, exegesis and apologetics, systematic theology and church history, homiletical and counseling theory. But the single most decisive need for sustaining ministry is personal piety–daily walking in God’s grace. And so, seminaries can and must be involved in such spiritual formation on the church’s behalf, not just by way of example, but in intentional, tangible, curricular, life-on-life ways.

Spiritual formation must be part of the seminary’s purpose. Otherwise, seminaries merely become theological graduate schools–and the church and its ministers suffer in the end.

A Brief Rejoinder

Carl Trueman

Reading Sean’s (another friend and another church historian — I guess it is one of those weeks) response to my exchange with Michael Haykin, a number of thoughts by way of response come to mind but I will confine myself simply to addressing one of his points. Sean makes the following claim:

Even when seminary faculty view the PhD program as an extension of ministerial training, because the PhD is oriented toward the academic guild, the overarching ethos of the seminary tends to move away from ministerial training toward professional knowledge.

I believe this to be an unwarranted (and, indeed, given its dependence upon the nebulous and rather subjective concept of ‘ethos,’ both unverifiable and unfalsifiable) generalized claim which presupposes the broad incompatibility, or at least the normative separability and opposition of agendas, of academic research and piety. Such a view (given its assumed opposition between ‘ministerial training’ and ‘professional knowledge’– however that distinction is being understood) has, I suspect, much to do with certain debatable contemporary assumptions about theology and theological education.

It also assumes that the presence of a PhD program has a determinative affect on the whole ethos of a school such that it becomes the veritable tail that wags the dog. Such might sometimes be the case; but I dispute the implication that it is either inevitably the case or even the usual tendency. It would be good to be given some specific examples that can be verified; though, of course, as I mentioned above, ethos is a very subjective and intangible category when it comes to matters of verification.

My guess is that all seminaries have equivalents to the kind of things to which Sean alludes at Covenant. The old canard about some seminaries training pastors, others training brains on sticks is a good sales pitch but remains just that — an old canard. Yet even if they do not have such things specifically designed to inculcate piety, my point still stands — we should not assume that seminaries should take major responsibility for spiritual formation, and certainly not the lion share thereof.

Thus, before we start fretting about trivia such as the existence or not of specific research programs, we should rather spend time reflecting on the matters Michael and I raised, such as the relative priority of church over seminary in spiritual formation, what the emergence of the concept of ‘spiritual formation’ as an apparently separate discipline or pedagogical calling in seminaries indicates, and why some of the things that are now taught by seminaries are by implication apparently not being taught — or at least not being taught very well — by churches as part of basic Christian knowledge and discipleship.

Seminaries and Spiritual Formation: Restatement

Sean Lucas

I’m so grateful for my friend Carl’s reply. It appears, perhaps, that I was a bit too subtle in the single point that I was trying to contribute, so I thought that I might take another run at it more directly.

If a seminary’s purpose is to train ministers and those who serve beside them, then I believe that they cannot forgo spiritual formation, believing that local congregations will cover that base. Rather, seminaries should concern themselves with spiritual formation as a primary focus because such piety is part of the necessary equipping of ministers. Such spiritual formation should be intentional and pervade the curricular and co-curricular design of the seminary’s ministerial training program.

How that is accomplished will be different from school to school. Some schools might have a faculty member dedicated to spirituality or spiritual formation; other schools will embed certain discipleship venues in the curricular design; some will focus on co-curricular aspects, such as chapel, as offering opportunities for developing piety; still others will ensure that courses are designed to inculcate certain practices of “walking with God.” I simply spoke about Covenant Seminary because that is what I know, in the same way that Carl spoke of WTS because that is what he knows. What’s important is that seminaries that have as a part of their purpose the training of ministers and those who serve beside them intentionally focus on spiritual formation–because ministers need such piety in order to sustain a lifetime of ministry effectively.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. There is a great deal more that I could say–because this point is why I believe in and am involved with seminary education for preparing ministers. The ideal of a college of pastors training and shaping future pastors and those who serve beside them is still a worthwhile ideal. But it is only worthwhile if we do not recuse “the lion’s share” of spiritual formation to the local congregation, but see such piety development as a key part of the seminary’s purpose and reason for existence.

Final thoughts (from me anyway)

Carl Trueman

A couple of thoughts on Sean’s helpful clarification:

First, in his first post, it is important to note that Sean was not simply speaking positively of Covenant. My concern was that he passed a general judgment on all seminaries with a doctoral program. As I quoted, “Even when seminary faculty view the PhD program as an extension of ministerial training, because the PhD is oriented toward the academic guild, the overarching ethos of the seminary tends to move away from ministerial training toward professional knowledge.” That would seem to be a serious indictment of numerous seminaries, including not just WTS but Southern,TEDS and others as well.

Second, I certainly do not wish to argue that seminaries should not be involved in spiritual formation. But again two things need to be at the centre of discussion here:
First, what is the nature of the relationship between church and seminary and their respective roles? I agree with Sean that seminaries exist to train ministers and those who work with them in the church; and that makes it vital that churches and seminaries reflect long and hard on issues such as the definition of the church, the nature of ministry, the qualifications for ministry, the means of grace etc. I am not wanting to prejudge any of these things but simply to point out that there is a discussion to be had here which does not seem to be taking place.

Second, we need to ask ourselves what exactly spiritual formation and piety are. I suspect that some of the disagreement between Michael, Sean and myself may relate to precisely this point. Indeed, to ask whether we should promote spiritual formation is surely a bit like asking if we should oppose injustice. The answer is obviously yes; but whether we agree on what exactly constitutes injustice and how it is to be opposed is another matter.

Take, for example, the notion of compulsory attendance at seminary chapel, fellowship groups or prayer meetings. Sounds like a plan, as they say in America. But imagine the student who works all night as a security guard and then comes straight from the night shift to an 8.30 am class. Should he be made to stay for chapel at 10.30? Would it not be better for him to go home, to rest up, to be with his wife and children? I would say that that would an act of biblical piety and represent precisely the kind of character trait which Paul sees as a sign of spiritual maturity and qualification for ministerial office in 1 Timothy, esp. chapters 3 and 4.

Or take another student who is very committed to serving in the local church and thus finds that his free time in the evenings and at weekends is at a premium. Should he have to go to chapel or a prayer meeting at seminary when he could use that time to study and thus to free up a little space in the evenings and weekends to be a good father or husband, to be there to read his kids a bedtime story or take his wife out for a nice meal and make her feel a little special? Or perhaps his wife is working to put him through seminary; then maybe his working through chapel and fellowship group times is what enables him to get a passing grade and to honour her sacrifice on his behalf. Again, these actions all look very much like biblical piety and signs of spiritual maturity to me.

And what about me? Am I sinning or showing spiritual immaturity or neglecting my responsibilities to the students when I am absent from seminary chapel, as I very frequently am? What if I use that time to read and to study so that my classes will be more competently taught? Or to meet one-on-one with students, and that not to talk about how they are ‘feeling’ about their spiritual ‘journey’ but to discuss the arguments of their academic papers? What if I simply want to sit down and have a cup of coffee after an intense two hour class rather than go to a fellowship group? Are my choices necessarily unspiritual ones? Might they not actually help to make me a more, not less, competent professor and minister? And, if I choose simply to rest or catch up on paperwork, does this not mean that I have more time in the evenings to be a father and husband?

Of course, I consider spiritual formation to be a good thing — self-evidently so, just like rugby union, fine cognac and all and every satirical parody written by Craig Brown. But I refuse to accept any necessary dichotomy between book learning and spirituality. As Warfield did, so I too believe that study can and should be done with passionate spiritual devotion. Like Luther, I repudiate the medieval notion of a hierarchy of spiritual and unspiritual callings, even when refracted through the lens of Protestant evangelicalism. And I see the first and most important way I help ‘spiritually form’ my students to be telling them that they need to study hard and be passionately committed to their local churches and, if they have them, to their wives and children. And I also agree with Jesus: when confronted by the Pharisees, his answer to their defective piety was often not to tell them to attend more fellowship meetings but an urgent encouragement to them to study books not less but more: ‘Have you not read….?’

This discussion is important. But let us not assume at the outset that even the terms of debate are matters of agreement. We need first of all to define exactly what is the role of seminaries relative to the church; and, perhaps just as fundamentally, in what exactly biblical piety and spiritual maturity consist. Only then can any constructive thinking about spiritual formation really take place.

All of these posts can be found on the Reformation 21 blog and are used with their permission.