A second area where there is a contemporary problem with calls to the ministry is the role of seminaries and theological training institutions.  Of course, seminary education is a perennial point of discussion concerning its content, mode of delivery etc., but the issue I want to reflect on here is a more one of cultural attitude. Its specific manifestation in Presbyterianism (and I assume other traditions have their equivalent) is this: presbyteries can tend to assume that a seminary degree reflects the seminary's confidence that the graduate is equipped for ministry.   This is not the case: possession of a seminary degree indicates merely that the graduate paid all his bills, passed all his exams and did not do something illegal prior to graduation.

Donald Robinson again has a rather clear-cut way of expressing this:

"A theological college course may indicate negatively that a man has no capacity for theological understanding, and therefore lacks a primary requisite for the ministry of God's word, but it will reveal little about his possession or otherwise of those gifts of ministry which only appear when the man is himself in a position of sustained pastoral responsibility.' Selected Works II, 155.

Perhaps Reformed theology in general and Presbyterianism in particular are especially vulnerable to regarding intellectual achievement as identical with qualification for office.  This is unfortunate.  If a  man cannot string a decent  sentence together from a pulpit, has the personality of a ping-pong ball or the social graces of a pit viper, he will be a disaster in the ministry.  The first will simply not be able to preach, the second will not be able to connect with people, and the third -- well, we all know such types and we know they only ever seem to grow churches on the basis of similarly angry people leaving the church down the road and coming to join them.

What is needed is a clear understanding that seminaries are not presbyteries: they do not make any judgment on suitability for ministry; they simply teach the necessary technical theological skills at the appropriate level. 

Further, there surely needs to be some more self-conscious means of review by churches concerning the call of pastors.   When we appointed a faculty member at Westminster a few weeks ago, I made a speech as Dean to the Board stating, essentially, that we were appointing the individual on the basis of his potential, not his achievement; and that at some point he would be reviewed to see if he had delivered on that potential. Obviously, the criteria for a professor are relatively empirical and, as an institution, we have systems in place for assessment.  With a pastor it is more difficult: how does one, for example, define `success' in a pastoral call?   That is for much greater minds than mine to establish; but it does seem clear to me that a man called to a pastorate, particularly an untried man, is being called on the basis of potential and thus the reality of the call to the ministry can only be assessed over time once he is actually in the pastorate.   An MDiv degree, a congregational vote, an `internal call' and an act of presbytery do not mean that a man is really called by God to be a minister.