Protestant Knight here. I’ve been asked by Jim to write today’s post, so here goes. I hope I can honor his and Carole’s care for this site.
Jim and I had a conversation via comments on this blog regarding Systematic Theology (ST) and its bizarre and imperfect duplicate, Bible Doctrine (BD; DC Comics would probably give it the moniker Bizarro Doctrine, but we won’t go there). Our primary topic was the concern I personally have as a member of a Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM)-affiliated church regarding exactly what was removed from ST in order to make it passable, more palatable or just simply easier for anyone, let alone SGM, and how this process gave birth to (drum roll) Bible Doctrine. The following is a re-run of comments I made, polished as best I can into an article:
In Bible Doctrine, (c)1999 edition, Chapters 26-30 are a section titled “Part VI: The Doctrine of the Church,” on pages 363-424. Chapter 26 is “The Nature of the Church,” including general statements of what the church is, with no specifics on church government whatsoever. Chapter 27 is “Baptism,” chapter 28 is “The Lord’s Supper,” chapter 29 is “The Gifts of the Holy Spirit part 1 (General Questions),” and chapter 30 is “The Gifts of the Holy Spirit part 2 (Specific Gifts).”
Ch. 26 of Bible Doctrine basically deals with the questions (1) How can we recognize the true church? (2) What are the purposes of the church? and (3) what makes a church more or less pleasing to God? There is no section on polity, whereas big brother Systematic Theology has plenty to say regarding church government.
So I read… and re-read… and read again the preface to Bible Doctrine. Admittedly, the hairs on the back of my neck are up on this. Apologies at this point to those who know what I am writing about is nothing new, and simply think this is a re-tread. I think it’s important to at least document it, particularly from the perspective of a longtime member of SGM’s flock.
In Wayne Grudem’s preface to Bible Doctrine (p.11), I quote segments from a very telling paragraph (for those who are paranoid about what I left out in the void of those three little dots scattered throughout, “…” please scope out this book on your own. I don’t believe I left out the heart of this paragraph in BD’s preface, by any means.):
“Jeff Purswell… did the hard work of cutting 740 pages from my Systematic Theology. He consulted regularly with me, and we agreed to eliminate whole sections that were more relevant for seminary students (chapters on church government and church discipline, for example, and most of the detailed footnotes that dealt with fine points of interpretation of scripture verses)… he also eliminated the bibliographies and (with regret) the hymn at the end of each chapter… he added a glossary of special terms and review questions for each chapter.”
Grudem goes on to say he felt Purswell did a “wonderful job” in the compaction of Systematic Theology, and Dr. Grudem is right. On the surface, it’s an innocent enough abridgement.
Here’s where the hair-raising aspects come into play for me and my view of the organization I grew up in (SGM). All of the above can be broken down this way:
My understanding was that it was Jeff Purswell who, from appearances based on the description above, engaged Dr. Grudem in what sections of the ST manuscript should edited or eliminated. What was eliminated by Purswell are essentially areas of concern that pop up on these blogs again and again (my comments are in italics):
(1) Church Government - This is a big one for Jim and I, and Jim even argues very effectively this is the root of most, if not all of SGM’s ills.
(2) Church Discipline - Just sample the harrowing stories on these SGM-themed sites, eliminate 90% of them if you’re the king of skeptics, and you’re still left with too many episodes that belong nowhere near the church.
(3) Detailed footnotes that dealt with fine points of interpretation of scripture verses - This one, I confess, pushed me over the edge. I’ll explain why in a second.
(4) Bibliographies - There’s nothing wrong with telling people when you haven’t come up with all the brilliant ideas in your book. An “Annotated Bibliography of Evangelical Systematic Theologies” is included, but Grudem was careful to note his bibliography lists at the end of chapters in ST were axed.
(5) Hymns - Music that only amplifies the deepness, richness and majesty of God! If reading these are bothersome to those wanting a quick theology fix, then we miss out on the beauty of how this great theology must be the heartbeat of our music.
So, in other words, all of the gaps above are left to fill by not only SGM, but whoever implements this into their school of study. So, it seems our pastors and/or members of the flock are being educated solely from SGM’s homegrown materials in regard to items 1 through 5 (1 through 3 at a minimum), and leads one to conclude:
(1) We are not entrusted to comparative study of forms of church government for ourselves (exintern’s story is exhibit one).
(2) Readers of BD are bereft of Grudem’s view of church discipline, as there is a possibility it may fall like a ton of bricks on our practices.
(3) The assumption that sheep are either not intelligent enough or not interested in learning the skill of scripture interpretation from observing Grudem’s brilliant method (”Hey, we can interpret it for you!” This one sends me right into orbit… I suppose I’ll just have to go… see you in space, beloved!)
(4) Research of all outside sources that were used in constructing Grudem’s outstanding work is not necessary, or at least not important.
(5) Hymns, deeply rich with good theology, were excluded, all in the name of saving space.
What else am I to deduce from these omissions that are titanic (especially the first 3)? Are we attempting to benefit from Systematic Theology by exchanging Grudem’s gems with our cut and paste subjective “SG Perspectives” on these critical issues? Give me Dr. Grudem’s 740 pages back, and thanks for playing, fellas.
If Systematic Theology wasn’t short enough to teach at the PC, or if it was deemed necessary that we sheep needed a dumbed down version of a very readable book, then PC either needs to be extended or we sheep are not really viewed as Bereans, but rather passive numb-skulls. I really doubt Systematic Theology’s length was the primary issue… call me a conspiracy theorist, I’ve been called much worse, believe me. I am not invalidating our pastors, I just wish they didn’t have any of these Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of Theology textbooks lying around. If this isn’t being used as a textbook, then what is its primary purpose? If we sheep need our own Theology textbook, please write one and don’t knock the teeth out of Dr. Grudem’s work.
All I can say is God bless our pastors, God extract the nonsense from them (and me), and help us to seek you, God, in all things.
All right, time for comments.
Can someone confirm here if Bible Doctrine is in fact the textbook used in pastor’s college, or is it Systematic Theology? This ground may have already been tread on SGM Survivors, but I’d love to have a discussion here on it. Church Government may not be deemed a necessary study in a book titled Bible Doctrine by some, but I for one think it’s absolutely necessary.
And rather than me quote Grudem from ST regarding these biggies, I’d like others here to do so, and maybe with their own views on church polity.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
PK,
I agree with your analysis. It seems extremely troubling to me that a church movement which prides itself on being the doctrine church would water down a text book on doctrine. Even if the purpose was to eliminate sections which were more relevant for students of theology, in order to create a still-accurate, yet more easily-consumed book, it seems an egregious error to take out sections as important as the very basis of church offices, church discipline, and detailed information on scripture. If we are to live the whole Bible, not just parts we like to understand, than this prevents us from doing so. Furthermore, if SGM feels it necessary to create a “Perspectives” piece on church government, who are they to tell us that it is unimportant for us to totally understand church government, just as long as we take it spoon-fed out of their hands.
On the topic of church discipline, I am inclined to say that in my rather-short two year stint in SGM, I have seen a few church discipline issues go wrong, horribly, horribly wrong. I witnessed first-hand what happened to my good friend exintern, as well as watched the “apostle” Jones remain enthroned through his son’s egregious behavior while in charge of the Florida youth. Perhaps if the flock of SGM understood what church discipline meant, maybe SGM would not so easily get away with this bad behavior. Unfortunately, I am inclined to comment that the information and thought control coming from the local pulpit, the regional managers’ offices and the head of state in all things SGM would prevent this ideal of popular uprising within to actually occur.
I am a book worm to begin with, so I find abridged versions to be reviling, disgusting, and thoroughly nauseating, so please excuse my spirited attack on abridging something so precious as Systematic Theology.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
my question is why did Grudem ALLOW another man to dictate what was to be the final product? My personal opinion, or at least how it APPEARS (which we are to avoid even the appearance of ungodliness!) is that Grudem, knowing they use his books at the PC, was all too willing to cooperate with the re-write because it would mean more book sales for him. All about the money. Why else would you compromise your work? It doesn’t sound like Grudem was enthusiastic about the revisions even, just grateful, in a sort of “I’ve just been manipulated but I don’t realize it, and I can’t figure out how or why I am feeling the way I am - disappointed but not wanting to make a fuss because it would make me seem prideful” - classic manipulation if oyu ask me.
My report card: Pursewell gets an “A” for his manipulation of Grudem, and an “F” for not being able to avoid the appearance of ungodliness….
August 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mike:
Thanks, and those outstanding observations in regard to where this situates the flock (me and many, many other precious brothers and sisters in Christ) in an SGM church. I was trying to find a good segment of your post to re-paste and applaud here, but it’s allgood and it’s a part 2 of sorts to my article. There was much more I wanted to say in that piece, but I think it’s important to get from folks what they got from Grudem, like yourself.
In regard to the horrid experience with church discipline you related toward the end of your post, this just cements my conviction that the flock must know top to bottom the details of Grudem’s ST take on this, as he soaks his theology with scripture. This can only be an inoculation (it may not be 100% bulletproof, but a very strong shield) of sorts against these sin-diseased, tragic events that destroy people… in many situations, as you confirmed, when church discipline is mishandled, it can be just as pernicious against those witnessing as it is for the one under discipline.
Great post, and thanks again.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Hi Concerned:
I honestly don’t know Dr. Grudem’s motives, and far be it from me to try to paint him with total innocence. It is puzzling to me as well, as I don’t know the entire situation and reasons behind it. The closest I can come to is another segment from BD’s preface (p.11, by Dr. Grudem):
“In the five years since Systematic Theology was published, the two most frequent comments I have heard are , ‘Thank you for writing a theology book that I can understand,’ and ‘This book is helping my Christian life.’ I thank God that he has allowed it to be useful to people in these ways. We have attempted to preserve these two characteristics –clarity and application to life– in this shorter book… I have not written this book for other teachers of theology (though I hope many of them will read it). I have written it for students –and not only for students, but also for every Christian who has a hunger to know the central doctrines of the Bible in greater depth.”
This may not explain much to anyone, and I am sure I will be accused of assigning motives to Purswell, but the fact that the five extractions I related in my original post (especially the first three) are three very bruised areas of SGM cannot be discounted. Connect the dots. The dots are connected by leaders in their flock all of the time, motives are rapidly assigned, and yet when there is the slightest criticism or concern voiced by a sheep in SGM in regard to leadership, polity or discipline, the claws come out, the hissing starts, fangs appear, and and it directly entails weaknesses that are characterized by, at a mimum, 1-3 above.
Getting back to what you said, Concerned, my whole point was that such a dumbed-down edition was unnecessary, as the first was readable. If it was financial concerns, a paperback/newsprint edition of ST would have solved that, and so many churches, especially in third world countries, would be grateful for it. This may have already been done and I am simply not aware of it. If printings like this were indeed done, then this makes BD just that more unnecessary. I can’t discount your observation on financial motivation, and I can’t say I would do it any differently than Dr. Grudem, had an innocuously appearing proposition of creating a smaller edition of my work with potentially more income had been put in front of me (much like the scenario you described). Grudem and Purswell go back a ways into Purswell’s seminary days under Grudem, so who knows how personal history played into it.
I can’t tell you what the motives were, only what the evidence of the negligence regarding the extraction of the top 3 seems to exhibit.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
PK,
Great article. You made it easy for simple folk like me to understand. Just the idea of reading Systemetic Theology makes me want to loose my reading glasses.
I agree with all your points, but especially one: church government. Though you didn’t go into great detail this time, I know your views from past posts. Plurality of Elders? Is that right? I believe that when the first elder-type people were elected, Peter told the church to choose those men. Didn’t the 12th Apostle (who replaced Judas) get elected by drawing lots? Could you ever see that happening in SGM? How is that for leaving it up to the Holy Spirit!
The Body of Christ should have a say in who is guiding them, because they know who amongst them is “filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit”. Who draws them to Christ? Who serves them with true love and understanding? Who would lay down his life for the sheep? I think members of the Body are fully capable of answering those questions and prayerfully submitting their choice of who will best lead the flock. I feel strongly that “authority” in the church is over-emphasized almost to the point of superstition. This ought not to be.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Concerned,
I think what happened between Grudem and Purswell is pretty standard in academia. Grudem would have understood that Purswell was not changing Sys Theo, but creating his own version of it, for his own purpose, however wrong it was. I would call it classic manipulation if, for instance, the book was re-released as Sys Theo with all of the revisions as something an editor did to him. He probably just assumed it was for an intended purpose, and thought the added revenue would help bolster his own convictions. Also, by creating an abridged version, he is sort of enticing people who enjoy it to go get themselves a copy of the real deal so-to-speak.
PK,
I salute your convictions. I hope posts such as this illuminate peoples’ minds to the information control and backwards practices found in some aspects of SGM. It is my hope and prayer that people come to terms with these things before too many more lives are torn apart.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
PK, thank you for your research and this article/post. We have danced around for months on both blogs about “why” and “how” and touched on the doctrinal problems and areas…I think you are on to something in that if the pastors at the PC are taught in a certain way, this does lay the foundation and set the stage for their further manipulation and control by the apostles and higher up leadership. IN turn, these pastors will have a foundation they can use to address and control the sheep in their care. It begins with mind control, where our minds come into agreement with the false teachings (or lack of teachings, as the case may be)
sometimes, false teaching also simply results from not teaching the WHOLE - which I think is what is fundamentally wrong with SGM doctrinal stances. It isn’t just what they teach, it is what they don’t emphasize vs what they do emphasize, and the combination of the two that produces crippled, fearful sheep in authoritarian churches.
excellent observations - thank you again!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Mike said:
PK,
I salute your convictions. I hope posts such as this illuminate peoples’ minds to the information control and backwards practices found in some aspects of SGM. It is my hope and prayer that people come to terms with these things before too many more lives are torn apart.
Amen and Amen!!!! So be it, Lord Jesus!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Concerned, you said:
Sometimes, false teaching also simply results from not teaching the WHOLE - which I think is what is fundamentally wrong with SGM doctrinal stances. It isn’t just what they teach, it is what they don’t emphasize vs what they do emphasize, and the combination of the two that produces crippled, fearful sheep in authoritarian churches.
Yes, yes - very insightful!
August 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Canary: “I agree with all your points, but especially one: church government. Though you didn’t go into great detail this time, I know your views from past posts. Plurality of Elders? Is that right?”
Yes. A true plurality would reinforce and strengthen the hedge around church leadership. The so-called senior pastor-led “plurality” that dave Harvey describes in “Polity” (available as a free download on our SGM website, and interestingly enough Harvey tries to fend off critics from the starting gate by placing a rather generic quote by [drum roll] Dr. Grudem!) is completely alien, I believe to holy scripture. Plurality of elders, or a presbyterian form of government, of course, like anything fallen in this world, is not bulletproof, but I would be willing to bet (and R.C. Sproul would slap me on the hand, justifiably for betting) it is a far superior model to Harvey’s warmed over episcopalianism/authoritarianism trying to fly under the flock’s radar (sometimes succeeding, sometimes not).
Harvey’s general argument early on in ”Polity” is that a true plurality is unproductive, on the whole, and he characterizes it as being too dead or inoperable due to too many hands in the pie.
That observation is (a) a straw-man argument and (b) a steaming dogpile set outside the church office door designed to keep sheep fearful of questioning church government in Sovereign Grace Ministries.
To get further informal on this, I witnessed a beautiful, successful plurality in my youth of the leaders of our church (at one time four men, three of them full-time) before it was quashed by PDI, with Pope Tomczak leading the charge. The ensuing decade was a disaster for our church, as a paranoid megalomaniac left many destroyed families in his wake. CJ’s takeover at PDI may have had bad repercussions elsewhere, but here it was positive… I am not excusing any of CJ’s sin by any means. Three SGM pastors (including my current one) picked up the pieces from this mess and have meticulously removed the shards of glass from the remaining sheep. Some sheep even returned years later, with a vow to never let this happen again. But we are essentially biding time with the senior pastor model, because not all of them are from the same mold my current one is (I thank God for him and pray for him every day, that the sphere of Maryland’s influence doesn’t ever crush him, and that he remains committed to accountability with his associate pastors).
Wow. Got off on a tangent.
Anyway, yes, Canary. Me no have enough caffeine. Me Tarzan. Me PK. Me want plurality of elders. Me think Apostle Paul want same thing too.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
PK,
Brilliant post! :-) Thank you so much for honoring us by guest hosting here!
But, even more than that, I want to publicly thank you for your (true) humility, your obvious love and concern for SGM, and your equal love and concern for those who have been hurt by SGM’s errant practices. You have a very balanced view of the good things in SGM, but also the very wrong things in SGM… thank you for not turning a blind eye, and calling for reform within this church movement!
I continue to pray for you, and for many more like you!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Anyway, yes, Canary. Me no have enough caffeine. Me Tarzan. Me PK. Me want plurality of elders. Me think Apostle Paul want same thing too.
That made me laugh! Thanks for making it simple!! I agree with Carole. Thank you for not turning a blind eye. Maybe there can be reform not only in SGM, but in other authoritarian churches, as well, through this blog and others. I hear it again, God saying with a passion, “Let My people go!”
August 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Harvey’s general argument early on in ”Polity” is that a true plurality is unproductive, on the whole, and he characterizes it as being too dead or inoperable due to too many hands in the pie.
PK,
I’ve noticed that this happens when people are not living for the Lord but for themselves and their own agendas. The answer, as you are saying, isn’t to throw out plurality of Elders, but to teach people to do all things with the mind of Christ, and to serve the Body in His love. When you loose that, you loose the right to govern, I think. Extremists like SGM come in thinking they must control everything.
It is sort of like living in the USA. If we aren’t involved in electing who leads us, we will eventually loose our right to govern ourselves as extremists take over. Anyway, freedom, if not protected, will be lost. This can be said for our freedom in Christ, too.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Thanks for your compliment and prayers, Carole, and it is my pleasure.
Reform must happen, or we as an organization will fall. I know some out there believe that should happen, and would even be happy to see it happen (these folks are rare, but they are out there), but I don’t. Every time it gets knocked down, I re-plant my flag. It’s hard to describe what I feel, I simply have to be obedient in God’s governance of my emotions and my battle with sin, and fall into the roads of His holiness and forgiveness that is paved by the blood of the Cross, and feel renewed strength in light of the Resurrection’s statement that death simply does not have final power over me, other saints, this world, this galaxy, this universe, this cosmos. YHWH does. He spoke it into existence, and for me to fall at the hands of critics and lemmings within and without SGM is simply a joke, by comparison. To whine about losing life or limb over the truth and protecting the flock is such small potatoes! When God tells me to move, I will… but it simply hasn’t happened yet.
That’s the long way of saying, here I stand… I can do no other. No, I’m no Martin Luther, but Martin is not the one I serve. I serve who Martin serves. Martin changed the world… I just want to protect my church from within and without.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
PK,
What you are doing is very wonderful. Reform in the church as a whole would be magnificent. This authoritarian thing is so wide spread!
I will be praying for your situation. It has to be very tough at times. God’s love will keep you, I’m sure.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Again, I have absolutely nothing of value to add to this discussion but I find it illuminating.
Thank you all, but especially PK, for articulating your thoughts so beautifully.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
PK–thanks so very much. Very illuminating.
Funny the way we live quite contentedly under a Presbyterian form of government in the United States, in a sense: we elect those in whom we have trust, who represent us in a plurality in Washington (well, ok, we could really open a can of worms right now over this…but just think in the most optimistic and pure sense of the thing).
Yet this form of SGM government is the opposite. Imagine, in the USA, if those who happened to be in charge because they were the first ones in the door simply chose others to put in charge over the rest of us–and we were without representation.
We’d call it tyranny.
I vote that we all work together and send PK to PC as a spy to figure out exactly what goes on up there.
Now THAT would be a blog.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Oooooh, a spy…so James Bondish…Jim could be “M”. Hee-hee.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Mornin’:
My quote of the day here, involving #1 on my list in this post:
“Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.”
-comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
We used Bible Doctrine in our systheo class at Northwestern College in St. Paul and my professor remarked that the book was the product of Bible College and Seminaries requesting an abridged version of Systematic Theology. This same issue trimmed down Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology to an abridged Introducing Christian Doctrine.
Bible Doctrine is a good introduction because it is readable and relevant to a lot of issues evangelicals think about when the first get into systematic theology. But I would hope that evangelicals would abandon Grudem altogether and go with Erickson. Grudem is too polarizing in my opinion on things that are highly disputable (Calvinism-Arminianism, Womanhood, Spiritual Gifts, Hierarchal Trinity).
One final note, however, is that John Piper (Grudem’s close friend) uses Systematic Theology as a “statement of faith” of sorts… pretty different from SGM’s use of Bible Doctrine.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
RK,
This is worth repeating:
“Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.”
-comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
I long to see this happen. Simple, uniform, and beautiful. What a remarkable statement.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
PK,
Your quote: “If Systematic Theology wasn’t short enough to teach at the PC, or if it was deemed necessary that we sheep needed a dumbed down version of a very readable book”
Systematic Theology was the first Theology book I read and it is a very easy read. I can’t imagine anyone needing a dumbed down version. I can’t imagine anyone in Pastor’s college not wanting the entire book so they could have it as a future reference. Also, this is one book where I really got alot out of the detailed footnotes and I wouldn’t want a copy with them removed. That is really weird to me.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Butterfly:
Ditto… Copy… my thoughts exactly! I just can’t figure out the reason why the BD book was made to start with, Adam O.’s comment that his professor remarked that bible colleges and seminaries requested a dumbed down version makes some sense, as different denominations could fill in the polity, discpline, etc. gaps… but that’s not all that good, as we have determined here. Viewing different forms of polity, for example, could have a positive effect on a church that has been using a failing model. Grudem’s work could help show them the advantages and pitfalls in other forms. Godd comment Butterfly!
Reformed Teacher: “I vote that we all work together and send PK to PC as a spy to figure out exactly what goes on up there.”
LOL…
They’d figure out my identity inside of a week.
I know that in posts like this, people view it as a back-handed slap at the pastor’s college, when it really isn’t. I am so thankful we offer something for our guys, but (imho) it seems to be mysterious in its scope, and the little to no information about it on the SGM website… in many ways is troubling to me. Does anyone know of a blog/diary that a graduate has published that I am not aware of that details the PC experience?
Right now I am re-re-reading Dave Harvey’s booklet on SGM polity (with a small slice of Grudem’s overview on polity for comparison) and… wow. Wow… and egad… I need more caffeine.
…pk
August 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I don’t buy the defense that BD is a condensed version for educational reasons with the sections removed for the institutions’ own policy to be taught. This is contrary to the educational message you find in post-secondary institutions. The goal of any higher-education institution is challenging the students’ critical and analitical skill. This is one example of circumventing that skill through informational control, for which SGM is becoming infamous. I know I have experienced this and recieved teaching on not critically thinking from the pulpit. NO MIND CONTROL, THANK YOU!!
August 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I agree, Mike.
Let’s not forget that Grudem’s Systematic Theology is an introduction to systematic theology.
Do seminary/pc students really need an introduction to an introduction?
August 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Excellent post, Mike. So, based on appearances: at best, BD is generic with a questionable fill-in-the blanks scope, and at worst it’s a purposeful edition with gaping holes that are all too convenient for “SG Perspectives” to fill. That is some extremely shaky ground, in any part of that best-to-worst territory. I’ve tried my best not to assign motives to it (although my sarcasm does leak through), and it still comes up unsavory all the way around.
Jim: “Do seminary/pc students really need an introduction to an introduction?”
Ditto, Jim. An “introduction to an introduction,” if that’s what it is, is such an unnecessary, moronic and confusing redundancy; and I think I’ll also state for about the thousandth time in these comments that Church Government, Church Discipline and notes on Scripture Interpretation must be a part of the flock’s core reading.
…pk
August 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I have a high school student who is the son of an SGM pastor, PC graduate.
He told me once that he was considering going to PC, because it was easy and he’d only have to go to school for nine months instead of four years of college, and then he’d be able to work.
I love this kid, he really loves Jesus, really REALLY loves his church, but it was at the point of that conversation that the hair on the back of my head stood up in regards to SGM.
I asked a bunch of SGM kids if they thought nine months of PC was enough, and they thought it was great that their pastors got ‘done’ in only nine months, as opposed to my pastors, who have to slog through college and then 2-4 years of post grad study in some dreary seminary in St. Louis, or some other dreary place.
After I told them that their pastors certainly ‘did college’ first, they seemed doubtful, but did agree that most of the ones they knew had gone to college.
(Sad moment of realization that the future of pastors may involve hard work and intensive study. Bummer, dude.)
They didn’t know, when I asked them, if there was any study of Greek…they couldn’t figure out why that might be important. One of them assured me that they broke their course of study up into parts, and then spent two-four weeks on each topic.
I was very relieved to hear all this.
Wasn’t there some plot….back in the sixties….to control a populace by controlling their education, and not allowing them too much knowledge, or teaching them how to attain knowledge?
I think it is sad. So many people with passion for God, true love for him, but living a controlled, dumbed-down theological life.