This Little Light of Mine: Scriptural Authority and Clergy Qualifications in the GMC [Firebrand Big Read]
Photo by Darko Pribeg on Unsplash
The rise of the Global Methodist Church has been predicated, at least in part, on a commitment to Scripture as the “primary rule and authority for faith, morals, and service” (⁋104 of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline). Good reason exists for this emphasis. Too often we’ve heard messages contradicting the clear teaching of Scripture, whether regarding human sexuality, the nature of Christ, original sin, atonement theology, or a whole host of other issues. As the GMC works to form its doctrine and discipline, it must consider how to help its clergy maintain orthodox beliefs amid a heterodox world.
The education of clergy thus becomes an important consideration. David Ackerman underscores this: “The surest way to deal with heresy in the church is to make sure strong leaders know the truth of the gospel” (1 & 2 Timothy/ Titus; New Beacon Bible Commentary, 2016, 405). He notes that in the age of instant communication, believers are exposed to a variety of confusing ideas every day. Thus, “[c]ompetent leaders must be lighthouses pointing the way clearly through this sea of confusion.”
The Problem of Biblical Illiteracy
The tides of this confusion have only grown stronger; recent studies have demonstrated a clear decline in the theological understanding of churchgoers. In its 2022 State of Theology survey, for example, Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research discovered that 43% of U.S. evangelicals agreed with the statement, “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.” Despite Scripture’s teaching that God does not change, 48% of evangelicals agreed with the statement, “God learns and adapts to different circumstances.”
The survey defined evangelicals as those who agreed with four statements, including, “The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe” (see the survey for additional statements). Thus, even though a person may claim the importance of Scripture for his or her faith, this does not necessarily translate into knowledge of the Bible or understanding of the concepts contained therein. The church must do a better job teaching scriptural truths, and the clergy are on the front lines in this battle.
The Need for Clergy who Preach, Teach, and Live the Gospel
The New Testament describes a variety of issues that plagued the early church, but the threat of false teaching appears repeatedly. Often it was the religious leaders themselves—not an outside cult—who posed the greatest problem. Certainly Jesus’s repeated arguments with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and chief priests demonstrate this truth. In one of his many stinging critiques, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as “blind guides of the blind” (Matt. 15:14). Although they were supposed to shepherd the flock of Israel, guiding and protecting the people of God, these blind guides were dangerous because their teaching was likely to lead others to fall into a metaphorical pit from which they might never recover.
The apostle Paul, too, warned the early church of the dangers of false teachers. When he gave his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, Paul exhorted: “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them” (Acts 20:28-30). Truth matters. Those who lead the flock must hold fast to the Gospel message handed down to them (Jude 1:3). Thus, learning what is truth—and the ability to discern what is not truth—is crucial for the success of the church.
In the pastoral letters, we also find repeated emphasis on the need for church leaders to teach the Gospel well. Paul tells Timothy that deacons “must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9) and that a bishop must be “an apt teacher” (1 Tim. 3:2). Similarly, Titus 1:7-9 states: “For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain, but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, self-controlled, upright, devout, and restrained, holding tightly to the trustworthy word of the teaching, so that he may be able both to exhort with sound instruction and to refute those who contradict it.” (See also 1 Tim. 1:3-7, 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:15, 22-25a, 3:14-17, 4:2-4; Titus 2:1.)
Robert W. Yarbrough summarizes Paul’s description of qualifications for elders in Titus 1. These requirements “comprise a character sketch of an engaged, self-sacrificial congregational servant leader (vv. 6-9). The picture is also of a person willing to go to great lengths in the study of Christian doctrine so that he may teach it…” (“Paul as Working Pastor: Exposing an Open Ethical Secret,” in Paul as Pastor, edited by Brian S. Rosner, Andrew S. Malone, and Trevor J. Burke, 2018, 152-53.). He further notes that in 1 Tim 3:1-13, qualifications for church officers “assume people of ambition, diligence and productivity measured by high standards will hold office; the slothful need not apply” (149).
In today’s world we often look at a variety of qualifications for our leaders, but the New Testament repeatedly emphasizes two key requirements for leaders in the church: 1) they must be people of integrity, living holy lives that honor God; and 2) they must teach the truth of the Gospel effectively. Put another way, spiritual formation must be married to Gospel knowledge. Conference boards of ministry should focus on these two emphases as they interview potential candidates for ministry.
Wesley’s Advice to Clergy
John Wesley was concerned that his fellow clergy members be educated in a wide variety of subjects so that they could effectively carry out their duties as overseers of the church. In “An Address to the Clergy,” he argued that clergy must have “a knowledge of the Scriptures, which teach us how to teach others; yea, a knowledge of all the Scriptures; seeing scripture interprets scripture; one part fixing the sense of another.” He goes on to argue that pastors should understand the “meaning of every word, verse, and chapter,” be able “to deduce the proper corollaries” from each passage, “to solve the difficulties which arise, and answer the objections which are or may be raised against it.”
But simply reading the passage was not enough. Wesley said it was necessary to know the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew and Greek). This allowed clergy—when it came to disputed passages—to defend their interpretations. Without knowing how the original languages were used, the uneducated pastor “will be ill able to rescue these [scriptures] out of the hands of any man of learning that would pervert them: For whenever an appeal is made to the original, his mouth is stopped at once.”
Wesley further argued that a broad range of knowledge was also necessary for clergy if they were to interpret scripture well. He urged clergy members to study history, geography, ancient cultures, logic, science, and even geometry. It was also necessary to study the teaching of the early Church Fathers. These all informed and aided one’s interpretation of the scriptures.
Although Wesley recognized that different degrees of mastery were necessary in these various subjects, he had no patience for those who, having the opportunity to learn, chose not to make the most of their education:
It must be allowed, indeed, that some of these branches of knowledge are not so indispensably necessary as the rest; and therefore no thinking man will condemn the Fathers of the Church, for having, in all ages and nations, appointed some to the ministry, who, suppose they had the capacity, yet had not had the opportunity of attaining them. But what excuse is this for one who has the opportunity, and makes no use of it. What can be urged for a person who has had an University education, if he does not understand them all. Certainly, supposing him to have any capacity, to have common understanding, he is inexcusable before God and man.
In the same address, Wesley also argued that clergy needed not only formal education, but also common sense, a capacity to reason, sound judgment, a good memory, and good manners (“good breeding”).
Most importantly for Wesley, the grace of God should be the foundation of every intent, affection, and practice of a pastor. Regarding intent: the goal of any pastor ought to be to give glory to God. Regarding affections: pastors must love both God and their parishioners, “but in degree far beyond that of ordinary Christians.” Without such love, Wesley argues, it is impossible to go through all the toils of ministry. Regarding practices: a pastor must abstain from every kind of evil, in both private and public life. The whole calling of a pastor is “one incessant labour of love.”
Thus, Wesley too understood and reinforced the New Testament’s twofold emphasis for preparation of a clergy member for ministry: spiritual formation and thorough knowledge of the Gospel.
Educational Requirements for Clergy in the Global Methodist Church
When delegates to the convening conference of the GMC meet in Costa Rica in just over two weeks, they will consider petitions that address educational requirements for clergy. Current rules are spelled out in ⁋407 of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, which requires 10 courses for deacons (5-6 to be completed prior to ordination and 4-5 afterwards) and an additional 10 courses for elders (6 to be completed subsequent to completing the deacon’s requirements and prior to ordination as an elder, with 4 to be completed afterwards). Specific courses are spelled out in these requirements. The petitions that have been submitted to the convening conference raise questions such as:
What level of education is necessary for a deacon? For an elder? Which courses should be required, and how many?
Should ordinands complete all educational requirements prior to ordination? Or should basic courses be required prior to ordination, with more advanced courses being completed while the pastor is serving in his or her ministry context?
Does an ordinand need to pass a basic competency examination in doctrine, history, discipline, and Bible?
Since educational institutions vary across the globe in the name and substance of the academic degrees conferred, how can the church translate the minimum requirements in each context?
Does it matter which institution ordinands attend for their degrees? What criteria should be used for recommending or approving such institutions?
Should a presiding elder advise which elective courses ordinands ought to take to meet their degree requirements?
Who is responsible for interviewing and approving candidates for ministry?
At times such discussions can seem rather pedantic. But a church committed to the authority of Scripture must carefully consider the requirements spelled out in the New Testament, as well as in our Methodist tradition, for those who would be leaders in the church. Will the requirements approved at the convening conference ensure that GMC pastors “hold fast to the mystery of faith,” are “apt teachers,” and can “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”? Will these requirements rise to the level suggested by Wesley himself? As currently written, for example, there is no requirement for pastors to study the original languages of Scripture.
One petition (#130) proposes that deacons should only be required to take six courses: introduction to the Old Testament, introduction to the New Testament, Methodist theology, Christian leadership/ conflict resolution, denominational history and polity, and the basics of preaching. I teach at an undergraduate institution where three of these courses are required for every student, regardless of their major or faith stance. Under the guidelines proposed in this petition, an atheist math major graduating from my university would already be halfway to meeting the educational requirements of a deacon! Surely our spiritual leaders must study more deeply than this! As a professor who teaches an introduction to the New Testament course every semester, I can assure you that the instruction of 27 books of the NT in 14 weeks is inadequate for those who would lead their flocks. The kind of intense hermeneutical instruction needed to give a pastor facility in the numerous genres, contexts, and authors of the NT is simply not possible in such a course. Such an ill-equipped pastor would likely have trouble answering difficult questions that may arise from a curious congregant:
Why do we still need to read and preach from the Old Testament, since we are now under the New Covenant?
How do you explain the differences in the four Gospels? Was Jesus arrested on the Passover (as in Matthew, Mark, and Luke), or the day before the Passover (as in John)? Does one Gospel get it right and another get it wrong?
Do the apostles Paul and James conflict with one another in their messages? Are we saved by faith apart from works, or is faith without works dead?
Is some of the writing in the New Testament pseudonymous—that is, is it written by someone other than the named author—as many New Testament scholars suggest? How do we know?
Since there are so many different translations and interpretations of the Bible, how can we know what to believe?
Much like John Wesley, C.S. Lewis argued that Christians must be well-educated in order to answer difficult questions and defend their faith. In his essay, “Learning in War-Time,” Lewis states:
If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.
From the beginning of the church, “bad philosophy” has existed. Paul called it false teaching. It will continue to exist until Jesus returns. Our best defense is a highly educated clergy who can shepherd their flocks into the truths of the Gospel and thwart the faulty arguments of false teachers.
Objections to Stringent Educational Requirements
Unfortunately, the sea of progressive theologies that swept through United Methodist seminaries in the last century has left many in the GMC with an aversion to seminary education. The answer to this problem, however, is not no education, but a robustly orthodox seminary education. The GMC has already begun identifying institutions it recommends its ordinands attend—institutions that teach Wesleyan theology from a decidedly orthodox perspective. If the GMC is concerned about bad teaching infiltrating seminaries, then perhaps an even stronger position is warranted. One petition (#232) submitted for the convening conference urges the GMC to limit educational preparation for ordinands to those institutions approved by the GMC. As a safeguard against changing theology, these approved institutions must be reviewed no less frequently than every seven years.
Some might object, however, that a seminary education is no guarantee that an individual is fit to be a pastor. This is certainly true. Education alone is insufficient. As described above, both the New Testament and John Wesley emphasized the need for spiritually formed individuals, living holy lives of love for God and neighbor, to serve as leaders in the church. A strong educational requirement does not negate other requirements for ministry preparation. This is why the preparation and interview process by conference boards of ministry is so important. Mentoring and other requirements for spiritual formation should become part of the process for every ordinand long before he or she appears before the board for a final interview.
Some have suggested that empowerment by the Holy Spirit should be the main requirement for pastors. After all, the Spirit can use whomever the Spirit wants, whenever the Spirit wants. The Second Great Awakening gives astonishing examples of this, such as Amanda Berry Smith and Jarena Lee, evangelists with little education who nonetheless powerfully preached the Gospel. There is no doubt that apart from the Holy Spirit we can do nothing. Nonetheless, the frequent warnings in Scripture regarding false teaching—especially that which arises from within the body of Christ itself—indicate that it is all too easy for the church to be duped by charismatic proclaimers who lack solid foundations in the Gospel. One of the primary defenses against such duplicitous preachers is educated clergy who provide in-depth teaching to their congregations so that all may discern the spirits (1 John 4:1) and learn how to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24).
Perhaps one of the most common arguments today against requiring seminary education is the high cost of tuition. Some students must take out tens of thousands of dollars (or more!) to finance their master’s degrees. After graduation they may be asked to take small churches that pay the minimum salary—which is not enough both to pay back student loans and provide a livable wage. This pragmatic concern—which is a real and serious problem—does not negate the need for strong education for our clergy. The solution should not be found in requiring less education, which merely addresses one problem (financial difficulties) by substituting another (poorly educated clergy who are ill-equipped to defend the faith). Instead, the GMC must prioritize providing financial help to educate its clergy. Local churches should financially support those parishioners in their midst who are called to ministry and need to pursue higher education. Annual conferences and the general church should also set up funds to promote the education of its clergy. Thus, both problems can be addressed.
Another pragmatic concern is frequently raised in light of the GMC’s choice to have only ordained clergy and not licensed local pastors, unlike in the United Methodist Church. On the positive side, this decision prevents a two-tiered system of pastors, giving all pastors the right (among other things) to vote on conference matters. Nonetheless, it also has produced new problems. Many of the former LLPs do not have the same level of education as ordained clergy; often these pastors are serving in small, rural churches. Many of these pastors are bivocational or retired and do not wish to begin a lengthy master’s degree at this stage in life (although an alternative educational pathway may still be possible). To require stringent educational standards would prevent many of these former LLPs from continuing to lead churches that they have been serving for years. Thus, the pressure on the GMC to fill these charges would increase.
None of these considerations, however, changes the fact that false teaching is a constant threat to the spread of the Gospel. Small rural churches deserve to have clergy who are well-educated in Scripture, Methodist theology, pastoral care, worship and the sacraments, discipleship, preaching, and a whole host of other important issues for the life of the church. It may be necessary in this transitional period to allow former LLPs more time to complete educational requirements, or to allow life experience to count for a limited number of courses. (For example, a Board of Ministry could allow someone who has years of experience in church administration to count that experience toward the course on Church Finance and Administration.) Perhaps passing a rigorous exam on Scripture and theology could count toward some of these requirements as well. But requiring less education, or changing sacramental authority (as some have suggested to allow laity to offer Communion in the absence of an ordained pastor), flies in the face of the historical orthodox doctrine and practice of Methodism. Pragmatism must never trump good doctrine.
Conclusion
If the Global Methodist church truly values Scripture as its primary rule and authority, then the educational requirements for our clergy must be geared toward greater understanding of Scripture and the tradition of its interpretation. A robust educational requirement will better prepare clergy members to preach and teach their flock, as well as to defend against false teaching, both from within the church and in the wider world. A church that wishes to focus on evangelism will need to engage with secular thought and provide an effective argument for belief in Jesus Christ. Although education alone cannot force a pastor to have the kind of integrity that the New Testament requires of its leaders, a robust orthodox education nonetheless creates a climate where this spiritual formation is encouraged.
In his “An Address to the Clergy,” Wesley decried those pastors who lacked intensive education, declaring: “I am absolutely incapable of teaching my flock what I have never learned myself; no more fit to lead souls to God, than I am to govern the world.”
Our clergy are meant to be lighthouses in the sea of confusion. But if the GMC approves impoverished educational standards at its convening conference, we may find ourselves instead with blind guides leading the blind. May it never be.
Suzanne Nicholson is Professor of New Testament at Asbury University in Wilmore, Kentucky. She is an Elder in the Global Methodist Church and serves as Assistant Lead Editor of Firebrand.