Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 6
The lesson contrasts early leader-training (“school of experience,” imitation, proven character, ability to teach by example, no seminaries) with modern professionalized ministry; what do you think is gained and what is lost when theological schooling becomes the main gatekeeper for church leadership?
Another way to ask: What do we gain and lose when seminary training becomes the main way someone qualifies to be a church leader, instead of learning through life, example, and proven character?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests something can be gained in knowledge and competence, but much is lost when schooling replaces long-term, locally observed character and example as the main proof of fitness. Bercot’s emphasis is that early churches prioritized spiritual depth, tested life, and mentorship under existing elders rather than academic credentials.

Support from Transcript:

  • “There were no seminaries in the early church”—leaders did not qualify “because they had studied in school.”
  • Training was “the school of experience,” where a man was “trained by the existing body of elders” and learned by “seeing and imitating their examples.”
  • He was given “hands-on experience under their supervision…allowed to make mistakes.”
  • A leader had to “teach by example as well as by word” before being considered.
  • Congregations cared about “the depth of a leader’s spirituality” as much as “the depth of his knowledge,” asking: “How close was this man to God?” and “Was he ready to lay down his life for Christ?”
  • Contrast with modern pattern: a “professionally trained man with a seminary degree…wasn’t raised in the congregation,” hired with salary and contract, and can be “hire[d] and fire[d].”
Discussion Follow-ups If a church values training, how could it combine serious teaching with the early-church stress on proven character and local apprenticeship?