Thank you for this perspective. It is laudable in terms of both intent and suggested approach.
I would add a couple of other seminarian development/weed out suggestions for consideration based on my own decades of both wonderful and dismal (and everything in between) experiences with both pastors and leaders in secular settings. Specifically, successful leaders -- and especially pastors -- are most beloved and followed when they possess genuine compassion and empathy with those entrusted to them. A parallel element is strong interpersonal and social skills which undergird the empathy and compassion gifts.
An old adage says that "People don't care about how much you know until they know how much you care."
We must get past the top heavy emphasis on knowledge at our seminaries and train the whole man to be well-rounded in "soft" skills for them to best serve their flocks. And if this combination does not exist in a person (or cannot be reasonably developed), then that individual should be encouraged to voluntarily or involuntarily pursue other vocations for which they are better qualified. Doing so is the right thing to do for both the individual and the members of the congregations of our LCMS.
Wholeheartedly agree. This is something that could reasonably be gleaned from peer/teacher/layman reviews of seminarians. It should be on a list of desirable traits that are especially assessed and selected for. MARSOC has an enormous matrix, wherein candidates are assessed on a variety of physical, mental, emotional, etc. characteristics indicative of success. They look for the best balance of a variety of features. But the only reason they can do that is they know what they're looking for and they aggressively remove those who can't meet muster. Great observation!
It is doubtful whether seminary professors, seminarians or congregations know what a pastor's job is. It is not to have a vision, to be a rainmaker, to be so winsome that everyone comes to worship every Sunday, and people are breaking down the doors to get it. It isn't even: to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Actually it is: but that slogan has numbed our brains so that we cannot articulate what it actually means; much less carry it out.
In a word the pastor's job is to lead God's people in worship every Sunday. His office is not the place where he keeps his books and pictures of his family. But the chancel. This is the place he reports to work. The altar is his desk, if you like.
And if you want to know what he gets paid for it is for consecrating the elements, and distributing the medicine of immortality to Christ's holy people. There are other items as well. All the things that lead up to Eucharist such as preparation, study and providing his people with sound theological studies. And the things that proceed from it such as visiting the sick and shut-ins and making provision for the poor in his congregation.
Any pious man of reasonable intelligence, good moral character, and who has the calling, can do this work.
Now if the seminaries and parishes knew what a pastor's job was then they would not take every man who met the prerequisites and applied. And these metrics would not be an issue.
I’m going to be the old guy with an unlit cigar in my mouth, hands on my hips and a constant pained looked on my face. And lots of knife handing movements when I talk.
Ordaining unfit men doesn’t just hurt institutions, but it wounds Christ’s sheep. Better to fail early than to harm later.
The root problems I see:
Institutional preservation: Success is measured by high graduation rates and full pipelines. But this props up fragile institutions while sidelining faithfulness. True fruit comes when we trust God’s pruning, even if it exposes decline.
Misunderstood calling: Desire is treated as divine call, and leaders hesitate to say “no.” The result is sentimentality instead of discernment, where men cling to ministry to validate themselves rather than being freed to serve faithfully in another vocation.
Production incentives: Seminaries measure output, District Presidents fill pulpits, congregations want anyone over no one. This reduces pastors to numbers, when the true measure is shepherds who can bear the cure of souls.
Loss of vocation: Pastors are trained for academics and judged in congregations by administration, but neither form them as shepherds. The formation of the whole pastor: prayer, presence, humility, and the cure of souls is often sidelined.
Cultural conformity: Families shrink, catechesis is subpar, and congregations blend into the world. By trading the cross for comfort, the church loses its countercultural witness and withers like the world it mirrors.
Gospel drift: Confidence shifts from Christ’s power to renew to systems and pipelines that keep the machinery running. By trusting survival strategies over the gospel, we deny the very power that gives life.
What repentance looks like:
Seminaries: Redefine success as not graduates, but faithful shepherds.
District Presidents: Tell the truth about calling, even if pulpits stay vacant.
Congregations: Resist cultural idols and embrace countercultural family life and discipleship.
Pastors: Return to the basics, such as prayer that carries the flock before God, Word preached with depth, law/gospel clarity, and catechesis that teaches both what we believe and why, and shepherding presence at pulpit, sickbed, family time, and graveside.
The bottom line is that renewal will not come by toughness, production, or sentimentality. It will come by pruning, repentance, rediscovering the gospel, and trusting the Shepherd who makes dead things live again.
Excellent points. The schools and training that prioritized headcount over quality always suffered. In a future article, I'll introduce the SOF Truths, and why they should be applied here as well. You ccan read ahead here: https://www.socom.mil/about/sof-truths.
I’d add that there should be a higher minimum verbal GRE score. Verbal ability is needed to fulfill the biblical requirement that a pastor should be able to teach.
Generally I agree with the premise of making seminary more challenging and longer.
Nevertheless, I do struggle with a couple of your points.
Firstly, the social skills/ "emotional intelligence" type stuff. The boomers have tried this for a while with personality tests, and generally it weeds out conservatives and favors libs. We've seen the fruits, and I'm not a fan. I believe particular types of people who are capable of strictly studying and applying the scriptures to a very deep level also tend to be a bit further on what would be derogatorily referred to as the autism spectrum.
Secondly, regarding lay reviews. This is already part of vicarage. But the larger trouble is that the average layman in the LCMS cannot adequately review vicars or pastors, because the average layman doesn't have the right skill set for the job. For example, just ask the average LCMS guy in the pews to recite the 10 commandments, it's not been pretty from my experience. Each congregation only has a few members who understand the task of a pastor theologically and practically to be able to give a helpful critique.
As a CTS grad, that's what I know, and I know those guys the best. And from what I've seen, I've been very impressed with those guys from the past couple decades. Do they tend to struggle with depression and quit? Yes. Are they perhaps a bit more awkward? I guess. But have they been largely faithful with the word of God? Yes, and they're why synod is making a right turn in the past couple decades. I know guys who are exceptions to this from this era of guys, but not a ton.
I'd be curious to hear specific examples of guys and particular actions they've taken that would make you judge them unfortunately for office. Because perhaps the problem you see is different from the problem I see.
Thank you, Pastor. I'm sure Jarryd will respond as well.
Some things we notice:
1. There is evidence of a social skills and self-discipline problem - lack of eye contact, inability to read the room, unusual interest in toys/collectibles/films/zeitgeist things, being unkempt (wild beards, ill-fitting clothes etc.), widespread morbid obesity, decline in basic manners (greetings, please and thank you, basic eating etiquette (mouth closed, hats off, small bites/no shoveling, don't lean down to the plate etc.), abudant alcohol.
2. The LCMS man in the pew who can't recite the Ten Commandments - that's mostly a pastor problem. What is going on that the teaching is not being taken up? Why was that man let off the hook?
3. Preaching is pretty mediocre compared with the rhetorical skills of the evangelicals. Is the heavy focus on the liturgy, vestments + accoutrements, and the lectionary to save the people from the preaching?
4. The pastors are the harvesters, but the harvest has halved in 20 years for the LCMS. Perhaps we have bad farmers? Jesus says there is never a shortage of ripe fields, just a shortage of workers for the harvest. Since we have the same number of pastors since the collapse started, it seems it must be a quality, not a quantity problem.
Obviously, this is not the rule, but it is also not a fraction of a fraction. We have many exceptional pastors, but too many PhDs and too few practical theologians.
Thank you for the response, Pastor. I appreciate the chance to respond to your concerns.
Addressing your first point, I would ask where in my article I mention "emotional intelligence?" I didn't, though I did agree with a comment that personality traits should be screened for, albeit not exclusively. I did ask for clear objective and subjective standards, which could include personality traits like being able to talk to people, but I left that open for discussion. We don't need more people that sit alone and study the scriptures. We need people that can both study and talk to people. I promise they exist.
Your second point actually strongly reinforces my argument. Who is teaching these poor laymen? Where are their shepherds, admonishing them to memorize the small catechism? I've had fantastic pastors I am happy to name that have pushed me to do just that: Pr. Sherrill, Pr. Bauer, Pr. Bombaro, Pr. Vanderbush, Pr. Rhode, Pr. Koch. These are men that should and did graduate. I've had pastors I won't name that never even tried. They should've been better screened.
To your third point, over the past two decades, the Lutheran church congregation has been cut in half. I'm not putting the entirety of the blame on the pastors. The blame can be spread around in lots of places. But I don't see a high percentage of pastors fighting against existential deletion.
To your final point, I'd prefer not to turn this into a forum for degradation. It's not really my place, and I don't think that publicly humiliation here serves any benefit. Nor do I advocate for this in my article. I think more transparency is better, of course, but not to belittle men, but to reinforce the importance of what we are fighting for. Happy to discuss offline, but I promise I'm not alone.
Thank you for this perspective. It is laudable in terms of both intent and suggested approach.
I would add a couple of other seminarian development/weed out suggestions for consideration based on my own decades of both wonderful and dismal (and everything in between) experiences with both pastors and leaders in secular settings. Specifically, successful leaders -- and especially pastors -- are most beloved and followed when they possess genuine compassion and empathy with those entrusted to them. A parallel element is strong interpersonal and social skills which undergird the empathy and compassion gifts.
An old adage says that "People don't care about how much you know until they know how much you care."
We must get past the top heavy emphasis on knowledge at our seminaries and train the whole man to be well-rounded in "soft" skills for them to best serve their flocks. And if this combination does not exist in a person (or cannot be reasonably developed), then that individual should be encouraged to voluntarily or involuntarily pursue other vocations for which they are better qualified. Doing so is the right thing to do for both the individual and the members of the congregations of our LCMS.
Wholeheartedly agree. This is something that could reasonably be gleaned from peer/teacher/layman reviews of seminarians. It should be on a list of desirable traits that are especially assessed and selected for. MARSOC has an enormous matrix, wherein candidates are assessed on a variety of physical, mental, emotional, etc. characteristics indicative of success. They look for the best balance of a variety of features. But the only reason they can do that is they know what they're looking for and they aggressively remove those who can't meet muster. Great observation!
It is doubtful whether seminary professors, seminarians or congregations know what a pastor's job is. It is not to have a vision, to be a rainmaker, to be so winsome that everyone comes to worship every Sunday, and people are breaking down the doors to get it. It isn't even: to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Actually it is: but that slogan has numbed our brains so that we cannot articulate what it actually means; much less carry it out.
In a word the pastor's job is to lead God's people in worship every Sunday. His office is not the place where he keeps his books and pictures of his family. But the chancel. This is the place he reports to work. The altar is his desk, if you like.
And if you want to know what he gets paid for it is for consecrating the elements, and distributing the medicine of immortality to Christ's holy people. There are other items as well. All the things that lead up to Eucharist such as preparation, study and providing his people with sound theological studies. And the things that proceed from it such as visiting the sick and shut-ins and making provision for the poor in his congregation.
Any pious man of reasonable intelligence, good moral character, and who has the calling, can do this work.
Now if the seminaries and parishes knew what a pastor's job was then they would not take every man who met the prerequisites and applied. And these metrics would not be an issue.
Rev. Dean Kavouras, Pastor
Christ Lutheran Church
Cleveland OH
The “summer hardening program”
Would be outstanding
I look forward to you leading the first cohort! Seems like we could also open it up to any pastor who'd like to join...
I’m going to be the old guy with an unlit cigar in my mouth, hands on my hips and a constant pained looked on my face. And lots of knife handing movements when I talk.
No and neither are the bulk of the other denominations’ since the 1970s leftist takeover of the seminaries.
Ordaining unfit men doesn’t just hurt institutions, but it wounds Christ’s sheep. Better to fail early than to harm later.
The root problems I see:
Institutional preservation: Success is measured by high graduation rates and full pipelines. But this props up fragile institutions while sidelining faithfulness. True fruit comes when we trust God’s pruning, even if it exposes decline.
Misunderstood calling: Desire is treated as divine call, and leaders hesitate to say “no.” The result is sentimentality instead of discernment, where men cling to ministry to validate themselves rather than being freed to serve faithfully in another vocation.
Production incentives: Seminaries measure output, District Presidents fill pulpits, congregations want anyone over no one. This reduces pastors to numbers, when the true measure is shepherds who can bear the cure of souls.
Loss of vocation: Pastors are trained for academics and judged in congregations by administration, but neither form them as shepherds. The formation of the whole pastor: prayer, presence, humility, and the cure of souls is often sidelined.
Cultural conformity: Families shrink, catechesis is subpar, and congregations blend into the world. By trading the cross for comfort, the church loses its countercultural witness and withers like the world it mirrors.
Gospel drift: Confidence shifts from Christ’s power to renew to systems and pipelines that keep the machinery running. By trusting survival strategies over the gospel, we deny the very power that gives life.
What repentance looks like:
Seminaries: Redefine success as not graduates, but faithful shepherds.
District Presidents: Tell the truth about calling, even if pulpits stay vacant.
Congregations: Resist cultural idols and embrace countercultural family life and discipleship.
Pastors: Return to the basics, such as prayer that carries the flock before God, Word preached with depth, law/gospel clarity, and catechesis that teaches both what we believe and why, and shepherding presence at pulpit, sickbed, family time, and graveside.
The bottom line is that renewal will not come by toughness, production, or sentimentality. It will come by pruning, repentance, rediscovering the gospel, and trusting the Shepherd who makes dead things live again.
What a high-quality comment. Thank you. Love our readers!
Excellent points. The schools and training that prioritized headcount over quality always suffered. In a future article, I'll introduce the SOF Truths, and why they should be applied here as well. You ccan read ahead here: https://www.socom.mil/about/sof-truths.
I’d add that there should be a higher minimum verbal GRE score. Verbal ability is needed to fulfill the biblical requirement that a pastor should be able to teach.
Generally I agree with the premise of making seminary more challenging and longer.
Nevertheless, I do struggle with a couple of your points.
Firstly, the social skills/ "emotional intelligence" type stuff. The boomers have tried this for a while with personality tests, and generally it weeds out conservatives and favors libs. We've seen the fruits, and I'm not a fan. I believe particular types of people who are capable of strictly studying and applying the scriptures to a very deep level also tend to be a bit further on what would be derogatorily referred to as the autism spectrum.
Secondly, regarding lay reviews. This is already part of vicarage. But the larger trouble is that the average layman in the LCMS cannot adequately review vicars or pastors, because the average layman doesn't have the right skill set for the job. For example, just ask the average LCMS guy in the pews to recite the 10 commandments, it's not been pretty from my experience. Each congregation only has a few members who understand the task of a pastor theologically and practically to be able to give a helpful critique.
As a CTS grad, that's what I know, and I know those guys the best. And from what I've seen, I've been very impressed with those guys from the past couple decades. Do they tend to struggle with depression and quit? Yes. Are they perhaps a bit more awkward? I guess. But have they been largely faithful with the word of God? Yes, and they're why synod is making a right turn in the past couple decades. I know guys who are exceptions to this from this era of guys, but not a ton.
I'd be curious to hear specific examples of guys and particular actions they've taken that would make you judge them unfortunately for office. Because perhaps the problem you see is different from the problem I see.
Thank you, Pastor. I'm sure Jarryd will respond as well.
Some things we notice:
1. There is evidence of a social skills and self-discipline problem - lack of eye contact, inability to read the room, unusual interest in toys/collectibles/films/zeitgeist things, being unkempt (wild beards, ill-fitting clothes etc.), widespread morbid obesity, decline in basic manners (greetings, please and thank you, basic eating etiquette (mouth closed, hats off, small bites/no shoveling, don't lean down to the plate etc.), abudant alcohol.
2. The LCMS man in the pew who can't recite the Ten Commandments - that's mostly a pastor problem. What is going on that the teaching is not being taken up? Why was that man let off the hook?
3. Preaching is pretty mediocre compared with the rhetorical skills of the evangelicals. Is the heavy focus on the liturgy, vestments + accoutrements, and the lectionary to save the people from the preaching?
4. The pastors are the harvesters, but the harvest has halved in 20 years for the LCMS. Perhaps we have bad farmers? Jesus says there is never a shortage of ripe fields, just a shortage of workers for the harvest. Since we have the same number of pastors since the collapse started, it seems it must be a quality, not a quantity problem.
Obviously, this is not the rule, but it is also not a fraction of a fraction. We have many exceptional pastors, but too many PhDs and too few practical theologians.
Thank you for the response, Pastor. I appreciate the chance to respond to your concerns.
Addressing your first point, I would ask where in my article I mention "emotional intelligence?" I didn't, though I did agree with a comment that personality traits should be screened for, albeit not exclusively. I did ask for clear objective and subjective standards, which could include personality traits like being able to talk to people, but I left that open for discussion. We don't need more people that sit alone and study the scriptures. We need people that can both study and talk to people. I promise they exist.
Your second point actually strongly reinforces my argument. Who is teaching these poor laymen? Where are their shepherds, admonishing them to memorize the small catechism? I've had fantastic pastors I am happy to name that have pushed me to do just that: Pr. Sherrill, Pr. Bauer, Pr. Bombaro, Pr. Vanderbush, Pr. Rhode, Pr. Koch. These are men that should and did graduate. I've had pastors I won't name that never even tried. They should've been better screened.
To your third point, over the past two decades, the Lutheran church congregation has been cut in half. I'm not putting the entirety of the blame on the pastors. The blame can be spread around in lots of places. But I don't see a high percentage of pastors fighting against existential deletion.
To your final point, I'd prefer not to turn this into a forum for degradation. It's not really my place, and I don't think that publicly humiliation here serves any benefit. Nor do I advocate for this in my article. I think more transparency is better, of course, but not to belittle men, but to reinforce the importance of what we are fighting for. Happy to discuss offline, but I promise I'm not alone.