It depends on the denomination. Some require a MDiv to be a Sr. pastor, and others a fine with you having a BA in religion or something like that. Most churches dont require as much education to be an associate pastor or youth pastor. You can also get a masters in theology or something like that and still get hired as a Sr pastor, but those degrees are really more focused on academia so you may be less prepared for the "pastoring" side of the job.

sebastiano said:

Does someone need to go to seminary to be a pastor or to be involved in christian service?

One shouldn't have to, but most mainline denoms require it.

sebastiano said:

What difference does a Master of Divinity or other seminary degrees make in someones life as they seek to prepare for ministry opportunities?

This may sound very cynical, but i'm quite serious - the difference it makes is to narrow a person's mind, to write that which cannot be expressed in concrete, to convince an eager, caring, service-minded individual that toe-ing the party line is more important than caring for the needy.

ringnut said:

This may sound very cynical, but i'm quite serious - the difference it makes is to narrow a person's mind, to write that which cannot be expressed in concrete, to convince an eager, caring, service-minded individual that toe-ing the party line is more important than caring for the needy.

Its always nice to be reminded that I'm narrow minded, rigid, and keeping people from living what they think God wants them to do.

When the truth is that anyone can do those things. That sometimes people go into Seminary very close minded, and have their views completely change. That sometimes it is the position and power which causes people to make concrete that which is difficult to express.

The movie Patch Adams comes to mind... and how the Dean of students tried to keep Patch from graduating simply because he disliked him. That towing the party line, as you call it, is not a seminary thing...it is a human thing.

If those things you expressed happened to you, then feel free to make some statements to that effect... but to lump everyone with a seminary education as such, its not cynical, but wrong.

Matt, thank-you for the reminder to always re-read before hitting that 'post' button. You are right...not all seminary graduates - certainly not you - are in that category. Neither are all seminaries. I apologize if my post implied that, it was not my intent.

The fact however remains, I know people who have left the faith completely after a couple of years of trying to maintain their intellectual integrity in the midst of what amounted to daily brainwashing. I know pastors - seminary graduates - who never allow an original thought into their head and actively discourage their congregants from doing so. And this is not a rare thing, at least in my experience.

You have a point about the position and power thing. It is a very pervasive human problem, and seminaries after all are human institutions. It doesn't change what some seminaries, some churches, and some denominations have become. Perhaps every educational institution should have the words "Warning: Populated by frail human beings" inscribed in stone at their entrance.

Well. If seminary is so necessary, what did the church do before they existed. The earliest I can find one is back in the 1500s. Not to mention, the "preacher" (pastoral ministry was more of a counseling ministry in the early church) as we know today, didn't start monopolizing the services until a couple hundred years after Christ.

Welcome Larry.

Religious institutions have almost always had some form of instruction from generation to generation. Any study of ancient religious laws will tell you that the early Israelites took laws from other religions in their area. Many of those didn't have formal "seminaries" but there was a more formal process of teaching someone to become a rabbi or other spiritual leader.

In the time of Paul, he went from town to town and established leaders of the churches. To assume that he spent all his time in each place without mentoring someone to be a pastor, reading Scriptures, learning how to interpret them, learning how to preach and teach, is simply naive.

Now, it is completely fair to say that a church need not have a leader who has gone through the seminary training process, but many denominations believe it has strong roots and bears good fruit, helping to mentor new leaders, learn and assess their spiritual gifts, learning the many roles which congregational leadership requires. And sometimes, part of that process is learning that one's call to ministry might be a bit different than expected.

And since none of us were actually there to experience the first few hundred years after Christ, I'd rather not speculate on who or how services were run.

There are many ways people worship Christ... many of them are pretty valid... many of those have pastors who went to seminary. Many don't.

@Ringnut

Thanks for not taking my words as an attack. I was a bit worried it would be viewed as one.

And yes, there are people who blindly follow. A whole lot of them have seminary educations... Yet those people, in my opinion, would follow a tradition or belief (rightly or wrongly held) blindly whether they had the degree to back it up.

Seminaries and Bible Colleges are filled with people who want to learn, who want to serve, who want to share the Gospel. Often, their personalities, desires, and sins, get in the way of doing such things, sometimes to the detriment of others. Yet I would say that the positive outweighs the negative.

MJG791 said:

@Ringnut

And yes, there are people who blindly follow. A whole lot of them have seminary educations... Yet those people, in my opinion, would follow a tradition or belief (rightly or wrongly held) blindly whether they had the degree to back it up.

...but when they have the degree, and then either are set up or set themselves up to be our spiritual leaders, they pass that same attitude on to their 'flock'. And round and round it goes.

MJG791 said:

@Ringnut

Seminaries and Bible Colleges are filled with people who want to learn, who want to serve, who want to share the Gospel. Often, their personalities, desires, and sins, get in the way of doing such things, sometimes to the detriment of others. Yet I would say that the positive outweighs the negative.

That is encouraging. :)

"Form of instruction" and formal seminary are 2 different animals all together. I do believe the original question was about a formal institutionalized and commercial seminary, not receiving instruction from individuals. I stand by the fact that there were no formal institutionalized seminaries before the 1500's from what research I have done. And I will humbly accept anyone's proof that there was any before then. Again, that being said, Christendom survived and even flourished w/o it.

Don't you feel that it's a bit insulting to refer to anyone as being "naive". Especially in light of the fact that in one breath you claim to know what Paul was teaching when planting churches and two breaths later you are stating the fact that since none of us were around the first couple hundred years you would rather not speculate on who or how services were run.

I'd love to have a civil dialog with you "speculating" what each of us believe Paul taught and how a fellowship went. :-) But that might be better off under it's own topic.

Thanx for the welcome, man!

Two people teach math and using a different system to come to the same answer is a different form of instruction. They're still formal teachers. Just because one might use a blackboard in a class room and the other might take the class on long walks discussing how they can come to the correct conclusion doesn't mean that formal instruction wasn't taking place.

I don't believe its insulting to refer to anyone's thoughts as naive if I believe them to be.

The point you make about a formal education being from a place known as a Seminary, being first established in the 16th century may or may not be accurate. But that doesn't take into account the other formal training pastors and priests received from established universities prior to the formal establishment of a school named seminary. For many centuries, theology was incorporated into all aspects of education. This brought about many evils, just as it brought about many good things.

So yes. The first school which focused mainly on Theology came about in the time period you specified. Yet your general point, that churches survived and thrived without them is wrong. And a tad naive. If you feel insulted, so be it.