Let [a bishop] therefore, if it is possible, be well educated; but if he be unlettered, let him at any rate be skilful in the word, and of competent age.

Apostolic Constitutions, II.1 (~375AD). From the Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection, Kindle edition, loc. 138659.

It was apparently not considered essential, at least by the pseudepigraphical author of the Apostolic Constitutions, that a bishop or overseer of the church should need to be especially well educated. From the sound of that quotation — depending on what exactly is meant by ‘unlettered’ — it may not have been considered essential that these pastors could even read. It was desirable, certainly — ‘but if he be unlettered, let him at any rate be skilful in the word.’ Note also that this comes after two paragraphs considering the character of the candidate. My assumption is that the unlettered pastor would know the scriptures well simply by hearing them read, taught, and discussed, and having been instructed and catechised orally. It’s well established that, until the Reformation, the spread of the printing press, and the sudden affordability of printed Bibles, most Christians would never have laid eyes on a copy of the Bible, much less have been able to read it.

The idea of a pastor who couldn’t read would likely be a bit shocking to us in the literate (post-literate?) West, but doubtless there are churches today in other parts of the world where godly men of good character but little education are faithfully pastoring churches to the glory of God, and doing so to great effect. And there will also be those who can read, but have never received even the scantiest formal education.

The Constitutions acknowledge the distinction between biblical competency and erudition. One of the men I studied with when training for the ministry was a real academic iconoclast, who frequently summed up his rejection of the often speciously sophisticated theological reasoning of our classmates by pulling a face and saying, ‘I just cannae see it’. He’ll never be a professional theologian, but he loves the Lord, and he loves the Bible, and he’s a fine pastor.

I used to think that it would be crazy to consider appointing a pastor who didn’t have a theological degree. And to be sure, I would still think that a candidate for the ministry ought to have as firm a grasp on the Bible, biblical interpretation, theology, and church history as possible. But if he’s a godly man, who loves the Lord, and is ‘skilful in the word’ — that is to say, if he’s good enough to serve in Sierra Leone or rural Nepal — I’m with the Constitutions.

The reason I came across this in the first place was while researching what the Church Fathers had to say about women in the office of pastor/bishop. Egalitarians often argue that one of the reasons women in that culture weren’t permitted into the pastoral office was because they had no access to education. But if the Constitutions are anything to go by, lack of education was no significant barrier to ministry in the patristic church, and even the illiterate man might be considered for the pastoral office so long as his character was godly and his handling of the scriptures was skilful. He certainly didn’t need to have a formal education. In this, the Constitutions chime well with the qualifications for pastors and overseers in the Pastoral Epistles — lots of emphasis on character, a requirement to be able to teach, and no mention of a classical education.