The Two Parts of Seminary Education

Quick. What should be the two constituent parts of a Reformed theological education? Theology and exegesis? Philosophy and theology? Systematic and practical theology? Good guesses. Having just participated in examinations for seminary graduates who seek entrance into the ministry, this question came up again.

Thankfully we can reply on our past (good) tradition. For example, on July 2, 1651 the Commissioners of the University of Dublin sent a letter to John Owen addressing this issue. Their desire was for Owen and Thomas Goodwin to review the University's laws, rules, orders, and constitutions and give their advice on how to better the institution. Here is where this short letter gets interesting. The Commissioners described their desire for their University and the training of men for the ministry in these words:

Wherein we desire that the educating of youth in the knowledge of God and the principles of piety may be in the first place promoted, experience having taught that where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness (The Correspondence of John Owen, ed. Peter Toon, 50–51).

The two constituent parts that these Commissioners desired for a thoroughly Reformed and Puritan education were theology and piety. That sounded so odd to me as I read this letter, since I minister in a context in which the theological training/system in which a candidate for examination is emphasized via the school they attended: Westminster Cali v. "Eastminster" (Westminster Philly), Westminster Cali v. "MARS" (Mid-America), etc. And not only the school, but the degree earned, the GPA earned, and the GRE score for those desirous of going to grad school in a University. Our current system is utterly focused on knowledge—systematics, biblical theology, exegesis, history, etc.

The Commissioners of the University of Dublin were on to something, though. Their experience taught them the necessity of piety in training students. What is interesting is how they qualify what they meant by piety: "where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness." Seminary students need to be born again, they need to be converted, and they need to have experienced the power of grace in their souls.

Is it any different today?