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

[Reasonably Sane]

I'm kind of amazed people even debate this topic. I use the example Jesus set when he chose the apostles.

 

[AlexB23]

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.

In the US, post-secondary education is expensive, but I am sure the church can cover that for those who want to be pastors, but I am not that familiar with where pastors get their education funding from. It is good that Australia covered your studies. Canada, the 27 EU countries and other first world nations such as Australia and NZ have lower costs of education in general.

 

[Paidiske]

It is good that Australia covered your studies.

Well, technically it's a loan, but on such good terms I'm honestly likely to die before I pay it back...

 

[AlexB23]

Well, technically it's a loan, but on such good terms I'm honestly likely to die before I pay it back...

Loans work also, as long as the interest is low. There have been debates on if interest on loans is ethical. In some Middle Eastern countries, loans have no interest, but extra fees may or may not be added on to get around the Islamic banking regulations: What is Islamic finance?

 

[Stephen3141]

I think that it is very dangerous to impose a separation of formal
"book learning", and teaching by the Holy Spirit. Most who do impose this
separation, are from anti-intellectual groups that ditched the intellect as a
useful tool, during the European Enlightenment. This ditching of reason,
has become part of their theology. But, it is not the orthodox Christian
approach to learning.

The Apostel Paul was a very educated man. And, he wrote 60% of the text of
the New Testament, including much of the "heavy" theological portions.
We would be wrong to argue that because he was very educated, he could
not find truth.

Even skilled secular linguists, can study how the biblical languages were
used. This knowledge, is valuable.

I have noticed on Christian apologetics sites, that perhaps 60% of the
inquiries or assertions, can be corrected simply by using the world-class
Greek lexicon of the New Testament, and the Greek text of the New
Testament. This reflects a crude lack of knowledge of the biblical
languages in American culture, and among Christians, and is not a
comment about the Holy Spirit. Christians would understand much
more of what the Scriptures say, if they would learn the basics of the
biblical languages.

It is true that simply getting degrees in college, is no guarantee that
a person is a Christian, or has understanding. But, this is always true,
and should not be used as an argument AGAINST getting a formal
education.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I think that it is very dangerous to impose a separation of formal
"book learning", and teaching by the Holy Spirit. Most who do impose this
separation, are from anti-intellectual groups that ditched the intellect as a
useful tool, during the European Enlightenment. This ditching of reason,
has become part of their theology. But, it is not the orthodox Christian
approach to learning.

The Apostel Paul was a very educated man. And, he wrote 60% of the text of
the New Testament, including much of the "heavy" theological portions.
We would be wrong to argue that because he was very educated, he could
not find truth.

Even skilled secular linguists, can study how the biblical languages were
used. This knowledge, is valuable.

I have noticed on Christian apologetics sites, that perhaps 60% of the
inquiries or assertions, can be corrected simply by using the world-class
Greek lexicon of the New Testament, and the Greek text of the New
Testament. This reflects a crude lack of knowledge of the biblical
languages in American culture, and among Christians, and is not a
comment about the Holy Spirit. Christians would understand much
more of what the Scriptures say, if they would learn the basics of the
biblical languages.

It is true that simply getting degrees in college, is no guarantee that
a person is a Christian, or has understanding. But, this is always true,
and should not be used as an argument AGAINST getting a formal
education.

I agree with pretty much everything you said there, but will add that one doesn't even need a bible to be a Christian. It is, for me, mostly useful in proselytizing or answering questions from myself and others. But the Lord can bring a person along without the scriptures at all, though they are useful, as stated in 2 timothy. So is the Septuagint, for that matter. and 1 Enoch, etc.

 

[timothyu]

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.

Having been molded into a controlled narrative. What is education but training individuals to adhere to a belief system.

 

[timothyu]

While church leaders probably do not need a master's degree, they need some form of theological education and experience

Would an understanding of how we are inherently backwards in our thinking in comparison to the Kingdom help?
This rather than a business degree in theology?

 

[ralliann]

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.

It would be great to see Educated clergy leadership return to having counsels. And provide them on the internet. If any church refuses to counsel together, they are like lone rangers.
Counsels to decide concerning differences is Apostolic, right there in the scripture. They should have never stopped.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Educated clergy are less likely to misinterpret scripture or provide misguided advice, as understanding ancient languages and biblical interpretation typically requires formal education.

Since there are seminaries for just about every denomination under the sun this means that a vast majority of them are misinterpreting scripture. If the educated pastors, preachers, and priests didn’t misinterpret scripture they would all be in the same denomination and teach the same theology.

 

[Strong in Him]

I agree with pretty much everything you said there, but will add that one doesn't even need a bible to be a Christian.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all.
Jesus told his followers to make disciples. It's not just a matter of hearing the Gospel and coming to faith, but of growing in that faith; knowing where to go when you have doubts or are asked questions about the Bible, or your beliefs.
After his conversion, Paul spent hours debating his new faith with non Christians and showing them that Jesus was the Messiah. On the road to Emmaus Jesus told the 2 travellers the Scriptures which taught that the Messiah was suffer, die and be raised again.
In John 15 Jesus said that he is the vine and we are the branches. We need to remain in him in order to bear fruit. One way we can remain in him is reading his word, studying it and memorising it. It is God's word and reveals God, his nature, character, will and so on.

There is also the fact that our faith is contained in Scripture. We need to know our faith so that we will recognise, and know, when someone else is trying to distort it. One reason why the cults are able to lure people in is because they say "the Bible says". The average person in the street or on the doorstep has no idea what the Bible says, whether what the cult member is teaching is really Scripture, or even true.
If we don't know our faith, how can we pass it on to others?

It is, for me, mostly useful in proselytizing or answering questions from myself and others.

So you go to the Bible only when you want something from it?

But the Lord can bring a person along without the scriptures at all,

Of course.
But all the advice to a new Christian includes "read the Bible". There are even Bible reading not especially for new Christians that will help them understand God's word and how best to read it.

So is the Septuagint, for that matter. and 1 Enoch, etc.

I don't know about the Septuagint but 1 Enoch is not Scripture.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I don't know about the Septuagint but 1 Enoch is not Scripture.

Define "scripture".

I'm with you regarding the value of the bible. I'm just saying that a bible is not necessary to be saved, though it can greatly enhance the experience, assuming one does not go off on some wild interpretive tangent, like the earth being the physical center of the universe (I have a Catholic son in law that believes exactly that. At first I thought he was jokiing. But this is not about Catholics. It's about him.)

The Septuagint and 1 Enoch are quoted in the NT. I like to know what those guys were reading, so I read it myself. I know that 1 Enoch is not canon, though I do see it as "scripture". i.e. something written down that can be profitable for teaching.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

No it just takes some study. Like I said in my previous post there are seminaries for every denomination under the sun. If people can’t interpret the scriptures for themselves then they can’t determine which denomination to follow. If they’re only choice is to listen to what other people tell them that the scriptures are saying they’ll never find the truth. The only way a person can know whether or not someone is teaching truth is to study for themselves, otherwise they’re just believing blindly.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Define "scripture".

I'm with you regarding the value of the bible. I'm just saying that a bible is not necessary to be saved, though it can greatly enhance the experience, assuming one does not go off on some wild interpretive tangent, like the earth being the physical center of the universe (I have a Catholic son in law that believes exactly that. At first I thought he was jokiing. But this is not about Catholics. It's about him.)

The Septuagint and 1 Enoch are quoted in the NT. I like to know what those guys were reading, so I read it myself. I know that 1 Enoch is not canon, though I do see it as "scripture". i.e. something written down that can be profitable for teaching.

I was curious about Enoch and thought about reading it but decided not to because I thought I might confuse some of the information from Enoch with Genesis.

 

[Strong in Him]

Define "scripture".

The 66 books of the Bible; Genesis - Revelation.

I'm with you regarding the value of the bible. I'm just saying that a bible is not necessary to be saved,

I doubt that anyone would be able to explain the Gospel without the Bible.
How do we know we are sinners? The Bible says so.
How do we know Jesus came to dies for us? The Bible says so.
How do we know that God loves us, will forgive us, fill us with his Spirit, who gives gifts? The Bible says so.
If you want to know about God, look in the Bible - there is no other book which teaches us about him.

The Septuagint and 1 Enoch are quoted in the NT.

Small portions of them may be quoted, it doesn't mean those books are God's word.

 

[timothyu]

I was curious about Enoch and thought about reading it

Probably the only reason Enoch is still mentioned is because of it's relationship with the rebellious nature of elohim and of man. Christianity likes to present itself as a human focused concept but very little is mentioned of the fact God's battle with adversity was going on long before man came about and what Jesus accomplished was not only involving man but p[art of a bigger picture in bringing God's battle with the adversarial spirits to an end. It's bigger than just us and it is a shame we are so focused on self. But that has always been our problem. Jesus' good news was about the Kingdom and God winning His battle. We are but bit players.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Probably the only reason Enoch is still mentioned is because of it's relationship with the rebellious nature of elohim and of man. Christianity likes to present itself as a human focused concept but very little is mentioned of the fact God's battle with adversity was going on long before man came about and what Jesus accomplished was not only involving man but p[art of a bigger picture in bringing God's battle with the adversarial spirits to an end. It's bigger than just us and it is a shame we are so focused on self. But that has always been our problem. Jesus' good news was about the Kingdom and God winning His battle. We are but bit players.

This might be true but only if Enoch is actually credible. It’s these kinds of messages I wanted to avoid accepting as truth because we don’t know if it is or not.

 

[timothyu]

This might be true but only if Enoch is actually credible.

The rabbis including Jesus had no problem referencing it.

 

[Niels]

No, but I do think they should be held to a consistent standard of doctrine. An education, but not necessarily a FORMAL education, should be required. A lot can be learned simply by reading, interacting with others, and prayer.

People can deviate from sound doctrine despite having advanced degrees. Maybe they no longer believe what they once did, merely went through the motions because that's what others expected of them, or have become motivated by selfish things. Parishioners shouldn't be compelled to follow highly credentialed heretics or unscrupulous individuals who treat their education in and of itself as an argument from authority.

Which isn't to say that having a master's degree or higher is bad. It isn't. In fact, it should be quite useful in most cases. Rather, I think it's good to the extent that it benefits their curiosity, their ability to teach, their witness, and brings them closer to having sound doctrine. Such things don't necessarily require an advanced degree.

Either way, the Church should have systems of checks and balances along with protocol to discourage heretical practices and to hold leaders accountable. Regardless of whether their education was obtained independently or through a formal institution.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The 66 books of the Bible; Genesis - Revelation.

I doubt that anyone would be able to explain the Gospel without the Bible.
How do we know we are sinners? The Bible says so.
How do we know Jesus came to dies for us? The Bible says so.
How do we know that God loves us, will forgive us, fill us with his Spirit, who gives gifts? The Bible says so.
If you want to know about God, look in the Bible - there is no other book which teaches us about him.

Small portions of them may be quoted, it doesn't mean those books are God's word.

I take a first century viewpoint. I believe lots of people came to Christ without a bible. And back then that would mean, in most cases, a Septuagint, which most of us don't even use any more. Many of those books are missing.

And Scripture is mentioned in 2 Timothy, but that was before the NT was compiled. IMO, it meant the Septuagint and things like 1 Enoch. After all, the word "scripture" simply means "something written down." And I believe 2 Timothy is right regarding the usefulness of scripture.

I think it is much better to have a bible than not have one. But I think Prayer is much more useful. My family has simply received too much information "supernaturally" through prayer to see having a bible as superior to prayer. It's best to have both, but if I were to throw one out, it would be the bible.

And FWIW, I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Rather, I believe it is the words of men, inspired by God, and it contains the word of God. And different bibles contain different books, though there are core books contained in all bibles. I believe that one should not merely "read" the bible, but STUDY it. And do so prayerfully, so one doesn't come away with some goofy ideas that are not really supported by scripture. I personally believe the main problem with what many of us believe (probably all of us to one degree or another) is that some of those beliefs are dead wrong. But it's not the bible that is wrong. It's our interpretation of what it says. I think that is why there are so many denominations. Christians "fighting" over what scripture actually says. I've learned to take a laissez-faire attitude. That is, I strongly believe Jesus is God in the flesh, that he died for my sins and that the result is eternal life with him as his free gift. Most of the rest of what I believe is not cast in stone. i.e. I no longer believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but that the age of man is 6,000 years old. But I don't say those that DO believe it is that age are wrong. I just disagree with them. When we die we'll find out what is true. Assuming it still even matters.