Should every leader of the church have a masters degree or higher?

[ViaCrucis]

I think expecting pastors to be trained and equipped for the vocation is a good thing. In a modern context, that is often through seminary training which involves having a degree, such as a Master of Divinity.

Does a pastor, absolutely and unequivocally need an M.Div? No. This is obvious from the fact that our entire system of modern academics is something that didn't exist for much of Church History. However, even from early on, there were institutions of Christian education, such as the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria. What there has always been, however, is an expectation for clergy to be trained and educated in some capacity.

There have been times when we've seen laxity in this, and it didn't go well. One of the major problems, and one of the problems reformers (on both sides of the emerging Protestant-Catholic debates) recognized in the 16th century, was the lack of educated clergy. The Mass, done in Latin, was not even always understood by the priest, and if the priest is not able to be a shepherd to the flock that creates problems.

In the modern day, there is a similar problem, with people starting churches and being pastors who feel called by God to pastor, but do not equip themselves for that task in a responsible manner. The result is a church in which preachers preach whatever they opine.

As such the Scripture that always comes to mind for me here is "To whom much has been given, much is required". Those who have been given the privilege and responsibility to bear the vocation of shepherding Christ's flock have a monumental weight to carry, one that demands much and requires much. It, therefore, behooves the person who feels called to shepherd to be trained as a shepherd. And that is why many denominations expect those who seek ordination to demonstrate the willingness to shoulder that ministry.

I wouldn't trust my car to someone who has never studied automobile mechanics.
I wouldn't trust my physical health to someone who never studied medicine.

And if I wouldn't entrust mundane things to those who don't study in the mundane; why should we entrust spiritual things to those who don't study and are not equipped in spiritual matters?

To have a pastor is to place oneself under the spiritual care of another person. To whom much is given, much is required.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
—1 John 2:27

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
—John 14:26

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
—John 16:13

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
—1 Corinthians 2:13

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.”
—1 John 2:20-21

Nowhere in the scriptures is there any case of one seminary trained, salaried individual, yoked up to a paganized or secular government via 501c3 (or the equivalent in other nations) lording it over the same group of people week after week, month after month, year after year. Not one. In fact Apostle Paul worked jobs to help support his own ministry and missionary efforts. How many modern pastors out there today are willing to do that? He also counted all things before Christ (such as his extensive religious training) as loss (Philippians 3:8)

What exists today is a manmade paradigm based off of Ancient Greek theatre, and a mechanism of control. Every leader in the church (which is not a religious building, but God’s set apart ekklesia) should have an anointing from the Holy Spirit rather than papers from a manmade institution. But this modern Baal system we live under, which also reigns over the institutions of denominational weekend religion, would much MUCH rather have leadership trained by them, not God’s anointed, set apart people. Also, those within the modern religious system are more impressed with credentials of the world such as certification from manmade institutions (sinful partiality, James 2:9). The whole system is unbiblical. The assemblies of the biblical 1st century church in the NT had active participation (1 Peter 4:10-11, 1 Corinthians 14:26). Nowadays the only active participation is when the gold plates come around. The modern weekend religious system is first and foremost a means of control, and secondly, a multi billion dollar industry. This isn’t what Christ came to establish on earth until His return.

Anyone with the money can get religious degrees, which explains a lot of things actually. There’s plenty financial, spiritual, emotional, even child and sexual abuse within the religious system. And this is what happens when leadership is self & seminary appointed, rather than Holy Spirit anointed. When the pursuit of numbers, and revenue supersedes the pursuit of truth. When it is about control over the masses rather than freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1).

Your mis-use of Scripture here is precisely an example of why pastors and those who desire to handle God's word for the good of others needs to be properly trained and equipped.

Taking passages of Scripture out of context and used as proof-texts is a terrible way of handling Scripture.

Which is why St. Paul, in his letters to St. Timothy, instructs the young Timothy on how to be a pastor, and to properly handle God's word, "rightly dividing the word of truth".

If your use of 1 John 2:27 were valid, then the entire Bible would be invalid, and John would be invalidating himself. If you want to understand what 1 John 2:27 means, just look at what John has been writing up to this point concerning false teachers; John's point is that those who have already been trained in correct doctrine will not give themselves over to false teachers, they will recognize the truth and can therefore distinguish it from error.

"Study and show yourself approved" - 2 Timothy 2:15

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GodBeMercifulToMeASinner]

Your mis-use of Scripture here is precisely an example of why pastors and those who desire to handle God's word for the good of others needs to be properly trained and equipped.

Taking passages of Scripture out of context and used as proof-texts is a terrible way of handling Scripture.

Which is why St. Paul, in his letters to St. Timothy, instructs the young Timothy on how to be a pastor, and to properly handle God's word, "rightly dividing the word of truth".

If your use of 1 John 2:27 were valid, then the entire Bible would be invalid, and John would be invalidating himself. If you want to understand what 1 John 2:27 means, just look at what John has been writing up to this point concerning false teachers; John's point is that those who have already been trained in correct doctrine will not give themselves over to false teachers, they will recognize the truth and can therefore distinguish it from error.

"Study and show yourself approved" - 2 Timothy 2:15

-CryptoLutheran

With all due respect, gaslighting, projection, and false accusation doesn’t change the fact that verse and all the others I mentioned mean exactly what they say. You can’t churchsplain 1 John 2:27 to support manmade traditions, business models, and the control mechanisms of the Baal system. Then you go on to hypocritically do the same exact thing you accuse me of ‘proof texting’ with that verse from 2 Timothy you posted. Yeah it does say study to show yourself approved, not sit in the pews idly to show yourself approved. Or ‘place yourself under someone else for spiritual care’ as you said in your other post. I’ve studied. Did you know that the man who’s religious movement you subscribe to unbiblically referred to Mary as ‘the mother of God’? But my Bible says ‘before Abraham was, I am’ (John 8:58). He also wanted several books removed from the scriptures, simply because they didn’t align with his doctrine. Yeah, I’ve studied.



Your claim of ‘my’ use of 1 John 2:27 making the Bible invalid, no offense intended, makes absolutely zero sense at all. Because first off, the scriptures are Spirit-inspired (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Secondly, it was the Spirit that led me to read scripture, and go out and buy a Bible in the first place. I understand just fine what 1 John 2:27 means. Can you distinguish error? How about carrying a denominational title under a mortal, sinful man’s name? Increasing man, decreasing Christ in the process (John 3:30-31). But I am sure you have some justification for that as well, and maybe I am just totally clueless as to what this passage means also, I am sure:



“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?”

—1 Corinthians 3:3-5



Don’t recall any ‘Lutherans’ in the NT body. But I am sure there’s a proper seminarysplanation for that haha. It is carnal to carry a mortal man’s name for your religious affiliation.



In your other post you are also comparing worldly things to that of the spiritual. Apples to oranges. The things of God are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:13-14). You’re comparing the carnal (auto repair, medicine) with the spiritual. Big difference. Your avatar says trust in Jesus, yes? And at the same time you’re advocating we just blindly trust ourselves to someone in spiritual matters just because they have a piece of paper that means they paid some tuition fees, doesn’t mean they have been born again and led by the Spirit. And in many, many, many cases they haven’t. Which explains why, when I visit a modern pastor’s webpage or ministry website..first thing I typically see is a donate link, digital panhandling. And in the bio they’ll go on about their degrees and their worldly accomplishments all that but almost never mention the Holy Spirit, biblical conversion experience/rebirth, or anything like that. Takes a bit of browsing to find their version of the biblical gospel to eternal life if they even feature one on their site at all, but that donation link is ALWAYS right there front and center LOL. Many are led by their belly, not the Spirit.



Call me crazy, but to put yourself under the spiritual care of another person is a very bad idea. How did that work out for the Jonestown people? Or the followers of David Koresh? That’s how things like that happen, trusting others for their spiritual needs. Your modern pastor didn’t die for your sins. Whatever happened to study to show yourself approved? Which is it? Are we to place ourselves under another’s spiritual care, or study on our own?



Paul also said this to Timothy:



“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

—2 Timothy 4:3-4



“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

—1 Timothy 4:1-3



Hey, that part about abstaining from meats is interesting, especially this time of year LOL.

 

[timothyu]

This is where tradition and tenets of a particular denomination comes in.

Matthew 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I think we both know that it's folks from all walks of life and all educational levels, high or low, who can "twist" the Bible if they're not careful.

And in today's world where Freedom Rings, freedom allows people to be and remain aloof and unaccountable for "how" they think and how they interpret human communication, even that which is found in the Bible.

I do not believe that a degree in theology fixes that problem.

 

[timothyu]

I do not believe that a degree in theology fixes that problem.

It might however solidify a certain agenda.

 

[bèlla]

You can’t churchsplain 1 John 2:27 to support manmade traditions, business models, and the control mechanisms of the Baal system.

All systems are designed to attract certain types. Whether it's financial, political, religious, etc. They have an ideal in mind and that's their preference. They aren't looking for mavericks or people who will change their philosophies. They're looking for people who'll uphold and defend them and extend their reach. That's why they chose you.

There's a program on Netflix you should check out if you have a chance. I think you'll find it insightful.

~bella

 

[timothyu]

There's a program on Netflix you should check out if you have a chance. I think you'll find it insightful.

Good documentary yes.

 

[Paidiske]

I would argue that some education and training is necessary and important. That will include academics but - imho - should also include things like field placements, practical experience, CPE. Often you'll learn more that's practically useful in ministry, in those settings, than in the classroom. Exactly what that programme should look like will be context-dependent and also different for different people. Some of us come with significant academic prior learning, some come with amazing professional experience, some come with personal life experience which is extraordinarily enriching. Tailoring the programme to the person and the context in which they hope to serve is essential.

So; learn the languages, learn the academics of Biblical studies, theology, church history, liturgy, ethics, and so on, by all means. But that doesn't necessarily need to come in a box marked "MDiv" (and I'd argue that most doctorates are a waste of time in ministry; people in congregational ministry need a broad range of knowledge and skills across many fields, not the narrow focus of having written 100,000 words or so on one very highly focussed topic).

And remember that academics don't measure or form character; the character of your minister is paramount, and needs to be tended separately to writing essays and passing exams. Or, to put it as it was put to me when I was applying for ministry, it's important not to make the mistake of ordaining people just because they have the requisite degrees.

 

[bèlla]

Good documentary yes.

Unsettling and demoralizing. You want to believe someone's genuine. But in every turn we see otherwise. Is it impossible to be in a position of influence and honor God? I'm beginning to wonder.

~bella

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not believe that a degree in theology fixes that problem.

And what does fix that problem? I have to ask because from my experience (i.e. both from observation and study), sitting in a pew, lifting one's hands to the Lord, or even speaking in tongues doesn't necessarily fix that problem either.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I think expecting pastors to be trained and equipped for the vocation is a good thing. In a modern context, that is often through seminary training which involves having a degree, such as a Master of Divinity.

Does a pastor, absolutely and unequivocally need an M.Div? No. This is obvious from the fact that our entire system of modern academics is something that didn't exist for much of Church History. However, even from early on, there were institutions of Christian education, such as the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria. What there has always been, however, is an expectation for clergy to be trained and educated in some capacity.

There have been times when we've seen laxity in this, and it didn't go well. One of the major problems, and one of the problems reformers (on both sides of the emerging Protestant-Catholic debates) in the 16th century, was the lack of educated clergy. The Mass, done in Latin, was not even always understood by the priest, and if the priest is not able to be a shepherd to the flock that creates problems.

In the modern day, there is a similar problem, with people starting churches and being pastors who feel called by God to pastor, but do not equip themselves for that task in a responsible manner. The result is a church in which preachers preach whatever they opine.

As such the Scripture that always comes to mind for me here is "To whom much has been given, much is required". Those who have been given the privilege and responsibility to bear the vocation of shepherding Christ's flock have a monumental weight to carry, one that demands much and requires much. It, therefore, behooves the person who feels called to shepherd to be trained as a shepherd. And that is why many denominations expect those who seek ordination to demonstrate the willingness to shoulder that ministry.

I wouldn't trust my car to someone who has never studied automobile mechanics.
I wouldn't trust my physical health to someone who never studied medicine.

And if I wouldn't entrust mundane things to those who don't study in the mundane; why should we entrust spiritual things to those who don't study and are not equipped in spiritual matters?

To have a pastor is to place oneself under the spiritual care of another person. To whom much is given, much is required.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed, although i have to admit that i didnt think of training a Clergy member other than requiring every Clergy member to go to school. Generally Clergy of the past before schools existed had to study the Bible in its original language and Greek and Hebrew were common back then. So while they weren't educated and equipped via a classroom they were equipped through the word of God.

But we both agree that if Christian denominations just take any Joe schmoe off of the streets than errors and heresy can happen within the church because they aren't qualified to handle or to lead God's sheep when they have questions. That is why my Elder and I get along so much and are friends. I love the way that he takes the word of God seriously and flat out declares the word of God as it is written, and I love the way that he uses his authority given to him by God to not only live a Godly life, not only to properly lead those whom he takes care of and watches over, but that he leads and takes care of our Presbytery and dedicates his life to serving God and making sure our churches are running smoothly. But he really is my best friend and imo, everyone should have a relationship like that with their Pastor.

But when a Pastor isnt prepared or doesnt take scripture seriously consider than heresy and improper teaching can rise forth. Like what is happening in the PCUSA for example. They're subtracting from God's word and adding things that God's word just doesn't say. They're Not becoming LGBTQ friendly and adding doctrines to the church that just are not Biblical. Not that all of the PCUSA is bad there are conservatives in the PCUSA buy that a majority of the denomination is just unqualified and needs a refromation. I think it's sad as a Presbyterian myself that the church had to split because one side wanted to take the word of God seriously and not change God's word and the other side wanted to change God's word. If you're reading this and you're from a liberal part of the PCUSA please don't take this the wrong way. It's just my opinion on how the church should be run.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In the PCA denomination, to be a Pastor requires a master of divinity or higher. Ensuring smooth operation and prevention of common issues. Roles such as elders, deacons, and treasurers do not necessarily require to have a master's degree in Divinity or equivalent, The question posed is whether all Christian denominations should adopt this standard. The argument for universal adoption includes:

1. Educated clergy are less likely to misinterpret scripture or provide misguided advice, as understanding ancient languages and biblical interpretation typically requires formal education.
2. Clergy without an education tend to have a low view of Scripture and they'll either twist the word of God or they'll declare it or church attendance unimportant when both are essential to the Christian faith. This can happen even from people with an education as well but it's much, much easier for this to happen in an uneducated clergy member than an educated one.
3. A uneducated clergy member can take advantage of its congregation and can abuse the authority given to them by God. Generally clergy who have an education tend to take God's word more seriously and will take their duty to educate, help and lead the flock of God. It takes an education in theology and pastorship to learn how to lead the flock of God and to help people come to Christ and to learn the importance of church worship.
4. It generally takes an education to understand the word of God and biblical interpretation should be left to the theologians and Clergy who know and understand what the word of God says.
5. (Biased opinion) A Pastor without an education is like a hunter without a gun. They are unequipped to handle everything that being the leader of a church entails and they tend to be as John MCarthur puts it, "unqualified".
   
   The suggestion is that these reasons validate the need for educational requirements across all Christian denominations to maintain high standards of leadership and guidance within the church.
   

Here is a good 3 part article on this topic you might enjoy:

Why Seminary? Exhibit A: Joel Osteen

The question of whether seminary is necessary is one that perennially resurfaces among those who sense the urgency of the need to preach and feel compelled to dive right in, but also understand the…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit B: Charles Spurgeon

Our discussion on why a seminary education may or may not be necessary started with “Exhibit A: Joel Osteen.” Rev Osteen leads one of America’s largest churches without the benefit of formal theolo…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit C: John MacArthur

“‎Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; the cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education.” – Mark Twain In Exhibit A: Joel Osteen, we embarked on a discus…

thecripplegate.com

 

[Neostarwcc]

I would argue that some education and training is necessary and important. That will include academics but - imho - should also include things like field placements, practical experience, CPE. Often you'll learn more that's practically useful in ministry, in those settings, than in the classroom. Exactly what that programme should look like will be context-dependent and also different for different people. Some of us come with significant academic prior learning, some come with amazing professional experience, some come with personal life experience which is extraordinarily enriching. Tailoring the programme to the person and the context in which they hope to serve is essential.

So; learn the languages, learn the academics of Biblical studies, theology, church history, liturgy, ethics, and so on, by all means. But that doesn't necessarily need to come in a box marked "MDiv" (and I'd argue that most doctorates are a waste of time in ministry; people in congregational ministry need a broad range of knowledge and skills across many fields, not the narrow focus of having written 100,000 words or so on one very highly focussed topic).

And remember that academics don't measure or form character; the character of your minister is paramount, and needs to be tended separately to writing essays and passing exams. Or, to put it as it was put to me when I was applying for ministry, it's important not to make the mistake of ordaining people just because they have the requisite degrees.

Maybe the PCA is wrong in requiring Pastors to have a master's degree or higher but really the idea is the higher a pastor goes in their schooling the more likely they're going to be successful PCA pastors. I said that every denomination should have this stipulation because that way every Pastor can be as equipped as possible for the important job of Pastor. A Pastor is not just a person to tell the people of God that they are saved because they prayed a prayer once in their life. A Pastor is there to educate and lead the Children of God and is a much more involved job than that. It requires a knowledge of scripture in its original language and it also requires leadership skills and constant poking and prodings from the Holy Spirit when a pastor does make an error. Which all Pastors will do more than once in their lives with or without schooling because they are still human. But that doesn't excuse a pastor from taking his job seriously. My Elder doesn't even want to get a ticket because he doesn't want to ruin his relationship with God by breaking the law and his law because he realizes that he was sent by God and is mire under God's judgement than any other human being because he is representing God and teaching the very flock of God two very serious things.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Here is a good 3 part article on this topic you might enjoy:

Why Seminary? Exhibit A: Joel Osteen

The question of whether seminary is necessary is one that perennially resurfaces among those who sense the urgency of the need to preach and feel compelled to dive right in, but also understand the…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit B: Charles Spurgeon

Our discussion on why a seminary education may or may not be necessary started with “Exhibit A: Joel Osteen.” Rev Osteen leads one of America’s largest churches without the benefit of formal theolo…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit C: John MacArthur

“‎Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; the cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education.” – Mark Twain In Exhibit A: Joel Osteen, we embarked on a discus…

thecripplegate.com

It does sound interesting! I'll check it out right now and let you know what I think.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Church leaders should be vetted in some way by some council or something.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Here is a good 3 part article on this topic you might enjoy:

Why Seminary? Exhibit A: Joel Osteen

The question of whether seminary is necessary is one that perennially resurfaces among those who sense the urgency of the need to preach and feel compelled to dive right in, but also understand the…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit B: Charles Spurgeon

Our discussion on why a seminary education may or may not be necessary started with “Exhibit A: Joel Osteen.” Rev Osteen leads one of America’s largest churches without the benefit of formal theolo…

thecripplegate.com

Why Seminary? Exhibit C: John MacArthur

“‎Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; the cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education.” – Mark Twain In Exhibit A: Joel Osteen, we embarked on a discus…

thecripplegate.com

I liked the writers point about Osteen being grossly unqualified as a Pastor because a Pastor should ideally have an answer for every question like Spurgeon or Sproul as another example, did. And for what they couldn't answer they said "That's a good question. Give me a minute to look it up or to think about it" instead of just saying "I don't know." Or "Its not my place to say." You're supposed to be speaking for God! You should know and when it comes to things that are clearly unbiblical from the text you should be openly declaring the word of God and to not be afraid of hurting a persons feelings. Like Osteen did frequently in the posted interview.

A true biblical Pastor should always be willing to help, teach, and lead the flock of God. No matter what denomination they're from or how prepared they are from their schooling or lack thereof.

 

[Paidiske]

Maybe the PCA is wrong in requiring Pastors to have a master's degree or higher but really the idea is the higher a pastor goes in their schooling the more likely they're going to be successful PCA pastors.

Honestly, I doubt that's true. There's an academic foundation that is good to have. But in the end, being a pastor is not only an academic pursuit, and success depends on more than just acquiring academic credentials.

And partly it depends on other things too. I have an MDiv, but only because I came to ministry with a bachelors' degree in an unrelated field. I sat in the same classrooms as my colleagues earning their BTheol, and the main difference between us academically is that I had to write longer essays! (The degree structure also differs a bit, but my point is that I'm not necessarily more qualified for ministry than someone with a BTheol just because I have a masters' degree).

I said that every denomination should have this stipulation because that way every Pastor can be as equipped as possible for the important job of Pastor.

I agree that we should be as well equipped as possible, but I think there comes a point where that equipping comes in different forms than academic theological qualifications.

 

[AlexB23]

I would argue that some education and training is necessary and important. That will include academics but - imho - should also include things like field placements, practical experience, CPE. Often you'll learn more that's practically useful in ministry, in those settings, than in the classroom. Exactly what that programme should look like will be context-dependent and also different for different people. Some of us come with significant academic prior learning, some come with amazing professional experience, some come with personal life experience which is extraordinarily enriching. Tailoring the programme to the person and the context in which they hope to serve is essential.

So; learn the languages, learn the academics of Biblical studies, theology, church history, liturgy, ethics, and so on, by all means. But that doesn't necessarily need to come in a box marked "MDiv" (and I'd argue that most doctorates are a waste of time in ministry; people in congregational ministry need a broad range of knowledge and skills across many fields, not the narrow focus of having written 100,000 words or so on one very highly focussed topic).

And remember that academics don't measure or form character; the character of your minister is paramount, and needs to be tended separately to writing essays and passing exams. Or, to put it as it was put to me when I was applying for ministry, it's important not to make the mistake of ordaining people just because they have the requisite degrees.

Agreed here. While church leaders probably do not need a master's degree, they need some form of theological education and experience. Though, one might say that high tuition costs could be a barrier. If tuition was lowered, we might be able to have preachers from all walks of life, both rich and poor. But, if a master's degree is required, and the fees are in the tens of thousands of dollars, we might only see pastors from a wealthier lifestyle who may not have the perspective of a poor or middle class pastor. Character and a genuine closeness to God/Jesus comes first, then education in my opinion.

 

[Paidiske]

Agreed here. While church leaders probably do not need a master's degree, they need some form of theological education and experience. Though, one might say that high tuition costs could be a barrier. If tuition was lowered, we might be able to have preachers from all walks of life, both rich and poor. But, if a master's degree is required, and the fees are in the tens of thousands of dollars, we might only see pastors from a wealthier lifestyle who may not have the perspective of a poor or middle class pastor. Character and a genuine closeness to God/Jesus comes first, then education in my opinion.

Historically one's denomination often paid for one's training. I gather that's less often the case now. I was fortunate that in Australia there's government support for tertiary study that made it affordable for me, but it's unreasonable to expect ordinands to be able to self-fund private tertiary education fees.