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

[AlexB23]

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?

Yeah, that would help. Nowadays, everything hinges on a piece of paper that someone could forge from a diploma mill.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

Sure. The whole church structure is fundamentally flawed. The "pyramid" structure of church leads to passive congregations, who contract out their Christian lives to paid professionals, avoiding developing a proper relationship with Christ. "Call the pastor", who has to be at the beck and call of their congregants day and night. Every Christian should mature to the point that they can encourage others. Pastor burnout is the result of overload. Change the system and the problem will evaporate.

It's not just the flock of God. Many pastors "have" to be in control. Partly this is due to the fear of people going astray. That would be resolved by ensuring that teaching the word was central and encouraging Christians to study for themselves. Who knows everything to know about God's word? Lord Jesus gave the ministry gifts to men. It was to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12).

Every believer has a place in the body. Many Christians are restless, bored and constantly on the move. At least in part, this is because their place in the body is not recognised. When I was youth leader at a local Pentecostal church, I would preach one week and ask someone from the group to preach the next. When I resigned from the position, and left the church, within a short time, most of the group left. The reason was that a paternalistic couple took over. They were spiritually less mature than some of the kids.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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.

It actually helps clarify Genesis.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It actually helps clarify Genesis.

If it’s actually a credible source, otherwise it’s leading people away from the truth. If I read a book that’s not canonized and I can’t confirm its authenticity then how can I know that it’s of any benefit?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Education within Christian educational facilities yes. Education within secular institutions should almost bar you from the clergy these days.

 

[TPop]

I agree, but with caveats.

Not EVERY graduate degree is relevant to having critical Bible study skills,
or teaching skills.

But, there is a high correlation between a lack of a college education, and
the odds that a person believes conspiracy theories. This indicates a
susceptibility of an uneducated person, to not having a properly developed
understanding of Epistemology, and a rigorous methodology to test whether
or not a proposition is TRUE. No one with a dysfunctional methodology of
testing what is TRUE, should be teaching in a Christian congregation.

I disagree that educated Christians, will more likely have a high view of Scripture.
Many anti-intellectual Protestant Fundamentalists have a high view of Scripture
(at least, their rhetoric claims this), but they misunderstand what human language
is, and what linguistic skills are. Their methodology of Scripture study is amateurish --
not their high view of Scripture.

A lot of those conspiracy theories coming true these days...

Peace and Blessings

 

[com7fy8]

It seems there are pastors who are church administrators who are even stressing and burning out, not resting in Jesus while concentrating on prayer and ministry of the word of God > "'but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.'" (Acts 6:4)

For appointing an administration pastor there can be the tendency to appoint a person who is educated and "type A" which in a worldly person can mean a personality which is >

Administrative

Aggressive

Ambitious

Abusive

And the person can seem like a "people person", but is a controlling person who makes things happen, instead of feeding us to grow where we need to go.

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

The type A in a Christian pastor means >

Abundant - our Father

Affectionate - Jesus loving His bride church

Active - the word of God in the Holy Spirit

However, if a qualified pastor has a degree and hierarchical position, this person can use this to reach and understand people with educations and positions of authority. But he is just as comfortable with married people and prisoners and homeless people.

1 Timothy 3:1-10 describes what qualifies a man to pastor. He knows God's word, can communicate the word, but there is no mention of educational background. In fact, in my interpretation of this passage, his seminary is his personal maturing in Jesus and learning how to relate and rule, at home, in his marriage and with his children.

He has become "blameless" in the character of God's love, and he has matured in how to love and rule his family. And this has qualified him to "take care of the church of God" . . . in our Father's family caring and sharing way > "as a nursing mother cherishes her own children," we have in 1 Thessalonians 2:7.

So he is not distant, not conceited, but personal with us so we can feed on his example as the meaning of God's word and demonstration of how he counsels us.

 

[Paidiske]

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

For what it's worth, this was not my experience of studying for my MDiv. I was told I could hold whatever positions I liked; but that if I was submitting assessment I would need to be able to make a good argument for them. I once wrote an essay in which I cited and disagreed with the academic marking the paper; when I got it back it had a comment in the margin "Well, that is a matter of opinion..." but I still got a good mark on the essay.

IME the experience of academic study aimed to open our minds to the breadth of thinking on various topics; being required to subscribe to a "controlled narrative" came with the oaths required for ordination. Whether you see that as unhealthy control or as part of the necessary "checks and balances" @Miles is arguing for is probably a rather personal thing.

 

[timothyu]

"Well, that is a matter of opinion..." but I still got a good mark on the essay.

Good for them... and you. Today the media and seemingly the colleges spend all their time discouraging free thought and straying from the official narrative

 

[Paidiske]

Today the media and seemingly the colleges spend all their time discouraging free thought and straying from the official narrative

I wasn't studying that long ago. I suspect your view is more of a caricature than the reality, at least in the majority of places.

 

[timothyu]

the experience of academic study aimed to open our minds to the breadth of thinking on various topics; being required to subscribe to a "controlled narrative" came with the oaths required for ordination.

No doubt. I have a cousin who spent 20years a Pentecostal until as he says he wised up. After deprogramming and further study he became a prof in divinity with a side of religious studies at one of Canada's leading universities. He told me the first semester was spent clearing the students heads of denominational influences and church traditions before he could even proceed to teach the basics.

 

[timothyu]

I wasn't studying that long ago

No I am sure you were not. No statues yet. My apologies

 

[Reasonably Sane]

If it’s actually a credible source, otherwise it’s leading people away from the truth. If I read a book that’s not canonized and I can’t confirm its authenticity then how can I know that it’s of any benefit?

Who made the decision to canonize or not canonize? What was their authority? I understand that I can, in general, trust their judgement, but that is what I'm doing: trusting the judgement of other human beings far removed from what is recorded. But with prayer, God can guide me to the truth in the books compiled in our bibles. What I've found is that I have no problem with reading books that are not actually canon, especially if they are quoted by the bible authors (1 Enoch is), without assuming they are the "God's truth from cover to cover". But the reason is that I don't believe ANY book in the bible is "God's truth from cover to cover. The bible is not only divine, but it's also human. That's why we have four gospels and not just one. We get four human perspectives on the life of Jesus, and they are all different, John especially so.

BTW, I own this book and highly recommend it regarding the gospels:

Synopsis of the four gospels

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who made the decision to canonize or not canonize? What was their authority? I understand that I can, in general, trust their judgement, but that is what I'm doing: trusting the judgement of other human beings far removed from what is recorded. But with prayer, God can guide me to the truth in the books compiled in our bibles. What I've found is that I have no problem with reading books that are not actually canon, especially if they are quoted by the bible authors (1 Enoch is), without assuming they are the "God's truth from cover to cover". But the reason is that I don't believe ANY book in the bible is "God's truth from cover to cover. The bible is not only divine, but it's also human. That's why we have four gospels and not just one. We get four human perspectives on the life of Jesus, and they are all different, John especially so.

BTW, I own this book and highly recommend it regarding the gospels:

Synopsis of the four gospels

Technically there’s only one gospel but I understand what you’re saying. We have four different perspectives but they’re all still the same gospel and they’re all correct. They record different events that took place but they don’t contradict each other.

The book of Enoch isn’t recognized even by the Jews as being scripture. No one knows who the author was and it’s believed to be written 200-300 years before Jesus was born. So I’m not sure where this unknown author got this information about what took place 3,700 years before he was born. There are a lot of false gospels and forgeries pertaining to the scriptures so when we read books from this category they really can’t teach us anything because we have no way of knowing if they’re authentic or not. So after reading the book of Enoch you have to ask yourself did this really take place and the only truthful answer you can give to that question is, I don’t know. So you really haven’t learned anything from reading it.

 

[Strong in Him]

I take a first century viewpoint. I believe lots of people came to Christ without a bible.

Yes, and many of those were taught by the Apostles - eye witnesses of events; people who had been with Jesus.

And back then that would mean, in most cases, a Septuagint, which most of us don't even use any more

No, their Scripture was the OT.
Paul's letters were passed around the various churches, Colossians 4:16. Mark's Gospel was written while Peter was still alive - probably in the 60's. Other Gospels followed later, so all these manuscripts existed.
It was only years later that it was decided to put them all into one book, along with the OT.

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.

It meant the OT.
Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy in the wilderness, often quoted OT prophets and referred to OT characters. He explained to the couple on the road to Emmaus why the Messiah had to die - starting with Moses and the prophets.

I think it is much better to have a bible than not have one. But I think Prayer is much more useful.

I wouldn't say that it is MORE useful - as useful, maybe.
God has revealed himself in the Bible; what could be more valuable than that?

My family has simply received too much information "supernaturally" through prayer to see having a bible as superior to prayer.

I'm not doubting that. But dozens of cult leaders, and many others, have said "God told me ..." and come up with something completely anti Scriptural - e.g. God "told" Rev Moon that he was the 2nd Messiah because Jesus had failed. God "told" Mary Baker Eddy that her philosophy was correct. God "told" Peter Sutcliff to kill prostitutes.
How do we discover whether these people really received messages from God? We compare the message with Scripture. "Rev" Moon said that Jesus failed; Jesus said that he had come to do his Father's will and said, on the cross, "it is finished". There are far too many other "voices" around - those of our own thoughts/feelings and ideas, other people and the devil, who is against God and may tempt and try to trip us up. Any of these may seem to be good and from God, but if they oppose Scripture, they aren't.

, but if I were to throw one out, it would be the bible.

That's a shame.
The Bible tells us to pray and gives us examples, and models, of prayer. I wouldn't throw either out.

And FWIW, I do not believe the bible is the word of God.

I don't think I said that it was the word of God. Jesus is THE Word.
Yes, the Bible contains God's word - the prophets often said, "thus sayeth the Lord". And Jesus quoted from it. In fact Jesus said that he was only saying what his Father told him to say - and his words are recorded in the NT.

I believe that one should not merely "read" the bible, but STUDY it.

Absolutely.

 

[Strong in Him]

The bible is not only divine, but it's also human. That's why we have four gospels and not just one. We get four human perspectives on the life of Jesus, and they are all different, John especially so.

Because they were all writing for different people and for different reasons.
Matthew was writing for Jews - that's why he quotes so many OT prophecies and shows how Jesus fulfilled them.
Mark's main source of information was the apostle Peter, who was escaping persecution. That's why his account is so brief, uses the words "at once", "immediately" so often and misses out some details.
Luke was a historian and doctor and was also writing for Gentiles, and women.
John was an Apostle. He was an old man when he was writing and is reflecting on who Jesus was and what he said, rather than describing all his miracles and parables. Some have said that John's Gospel was a sermon to one of his churches.

 

[Paidiske]

No, their Scripture was the OT.

The Septuagint is the OT; translated into the common Greek of Jesus' era (what we would now call Koine or NT Greek). It includes some books whose place in the canon is now disputed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A lot of those conspiracy theories coming true these days...

Peace and Blessings

Are they?

The massive amounts of misinformation, often easily debunkable misinformation, would suggest that while more and more people are believing in conspiracy theories there doesn't seem to exist a whole lot of evidence that such conspiracy theories are true.

What seems more likely is that many people are increasingly less critical of the information they digest. That kind of critical thought and analysis, while not requiring higher education, is something higher education can help foster. I don't have a degree of any kind, never finished college, but even the little bit of study I did at a local community college helped me; in conjunction with all the years I've spent having conversations on discussion forums such as this one where I've found hunting down sources and doing critical thinking necessary.

While certainly only anecdotal: For the majority of my life I never had to concern myself with having to defend vaccination or the roundness of the earth from people claiming vaccines are demonic or people claiming the earth is flat.

Back when Dan Brown's infamous novel came out I spent a lot of time having to explain, and inform, lots of people about how, in spite of Dan Brown's claims that the historical information as is presented in the novel is rooted in fact; that it isn't. Brown's novel relied heavily on conspiracy theory (and plagiarism, but that's another story). The same is true with the Zeitgeist film from years back.

But, at least from my personal experience and observation, it seems to be getting worse. While I don't see people concerned with a novel about Leonardo da Vinci and his code, or people bringing up the Zeitgeist movie anymore; I do see a lot more related to other things. In my estimation a major turning point, at least in an American context, was during Obama's presidency, and it's only intensified; and become so commonplace that it's nearly impossible to keep up.

So conspiracy theories aren't coming true, but there certainly are a lot of people seemingly more willing to believe in them. Speaking personally, my own sanity has benefited greatly from getting rid of FaceBook and most social media. Social Media is brain rot. Not that long ago there was, apparently, a trend in people claiming the Roman Empire never existed. Just yesterday I saw a teacher complaining that more than half the students in his class thought Helen Keller was a fictional character. And as generation that liberated Jews from Nazi death camps passes away, there is a growth in Holocaust denial.

Things are getting worse--because people are less interested in facts and misinformation spreads fast. Anyone can say anything on the internet, and there is a high probability that at least some people will believe it, and just repeat what they heard without criticism or second thought.

That's the danger in our world today; and why we need critical thinking more now than ever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It actually helps clarify Genesis.

The Enochian literature (what we call "The Book of Enoch" isn't one book, but a composition of several texts written over several hundred years) doesn't clarify Genesis. The earliest dated portion of Enoch, the Book of the Watchers, offers a creative elaboration; but to say it clarifies anything in Genesis presumes that the Book of the Watchers should be taken reliably. A presumption which is hardly a given.

The Book of the Watchers is a fantastical fiction that is creatively inspired by Genesis; but that's about all that can be said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Could you clarify? If by this you mean Jesus and His Apostles are a good argument in favor of training and education, I'd certainly agree. The Apostles received the best seminary training in the world, right at Christ's feet.

-CryptoLutheran