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, Christian life, 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.
Looking forward to your next article! IMO it would be great to see the SOF’s mapped to Paul’s pastoral qualifications and the cure of souls (cura animarum). In the church, “quality” = gospel-forged character formed thru repentance & faith: humility, gentleness, prayer, self-control, shepherding presence from cradle to grave. Bonus: name the incentive problem (seminaries by headcount, DPs by pulpits filled) and the risk of gospel drift — trusting systems instead of Christ.
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.
Dear Kristine, I think that’s a terrible idea. The Verbal does not measure the ability to teach but rather one’s ability to evaluate and understand analytical arguments within a condescend time. Many of the questions are not related to theology in the slightest. Plus it is in written format and teaching is done orally. What would be the minimum score? Who determines this? I think I will stick with God’s qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2 and not some secular test.
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.
Our Lord says in Luke 18:8 will He find faith when He returns. Noah had 8 souls on the Ark. When David took a census what occurred? Numbers do not equal faithfulness. The decline of the LCMS is a decline in Christianity generally and not necessarily an indictment on preaching. It’s not a magical formula. Hearts have grown cold and churches select men who fit their itching ears.
To say the so called evangelical churches are not suffering from this is a stretch but they also have a view of the Pastor as a charismatic leader and not one based on vocatio as God’s man placed in that church. He is faithful by doing his duties day in and day out. Are you suggesting we adopt the views of heretical churches?
The pastor doesn’t need to be this paragon of excellence especially based on secular criteria. Look at the greatest prophet and forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist. Based on your hygienic criteria, he would be excluded although I think you have some valid points. You go just a bit too far with some of them. The Holy Spirit’s criteria for a pastor is based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2. I would add that He even says His apostles speech was not lofty but it proclaimed Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1).
This is an excellent recapitulation of the institutional view pervasive throughout the Synod.
1. Passive fatalism. Inshallah! Christ sows the seed, but has left the harvest to the pastors. All the fields are full to overflowing because Jesus prepared the soil and sent the rain, but the Great Steward's workers are not showing up.
At least you do admit that the churches have grown cold and the pastors are scratching itching ears. Who is supposed to light the fires and let them hear the Word that burns in their hearts?
2. I did not say the Evangelicals are not suffering a malaise, nor did I say that we need to mimic anyone. It was simply to note the rhetorical skills of the average Baptist preacher in TN, not to praise the content.
We must be ruthlessly honest if we value truth. How can we say our men are doing their duties day in and day out when Synod membership and attendance have halved under the same number of pastors?
Our pastors get to dress like John the Baptist and eat locusts and wild honey when they condemn the king's adulterous incest, knowing their heads will roll, or preach with such power and conviction that thousands of people stream to the remote wilderness to be baptized in defiance of the clucking and preening Pharisees.
We have so many great pastors ready to be unleashed, unshackled, and unbridled to preach in the full power of the Holy Spirit who gives the words and what they accomplish.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. The first response to your comment is adequate, but I will hit home a few points.
Numbers do not equal faithfulness is true, as growth only happens from the Holy Spirit. But numbers are indicative of a problem, and it would be very hard to convince me there isn't a problem because of the excellent articles from Ad Crucem. If there is a problem, and we need the Holy Spirit to rectify it, and "...faith comes by hearing..." then we must look at those who are instructed to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." If hearts have grown cold, it is because they haven't been preached the Gospel.
I obviously don't want to adopt the views of heretical churches. This is a red herring fallacy. I just want better pastors, and the confidence that the seminaries are doing everything they can to achieve that. I'd ask that you comment on the points in the article instead of introducing other topics.
To Ad Crucem's point, pastors ARE the paragon of excellence. They aren't perfect, of course (but still must be found blameless), but that's why if they commit adultery, for example, they are no longer fit for the cloth, but as LCMS members can still come to church (assuming repentance has occurred, which is also another topic for another time). We are supposed to have a higher standard for pastors. That's a good thing.
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.
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
I think very important that the pastor has zeal to teach and defend the pure doctrine. I hate a lukewarm.
My snarky comment is to say “ask the Sem wives who shouldn’t be a pastor” and I would have a list for you. And from what I’ve seen, my intuition and observations have been on the right track.
An interesting article. I’ll admit, a bit wary of using too many comparisons to Caesar’s military.
In this pastoral opinion:
If we’re going to be using military analogies, the MDiv formation out of high school is more akin to Military Academy/ROTC plus medical school in oncology with a residency (Note: You can throw in counseling, instructing, recruiting, and numerous other mini-specialities that folks desire in their “generalist”).
You may not like the medicine that we are giving (Word & Sacraments), yet if the cancer of unrepentant sin remains, there is an objective truth to be dealt with.
To the article, I appreciate the offramp suggestion; let’s put some skin in the game…a fully funded AAS degree fellowship, plus a work truck, tools, and living expenses for the two year A.A.S. (welding, electrical, plumbing, etc.) for those “washing out.” If the guy wants to do another training program, so be it. Having that off-ramp if placement isn’t coming would be a blessing. Perhaps some kind folks could raise funds for that.
Thanks, Pastor. Not sure what the Caesar's military reference is?
The article is not about analogies. It's about using the experience of the most efficient educators in the world - the military. They take a callow youth and transform him within 9 months to a leadership role ready for combat, and then provide ladders to increased responsibility.
As analogies go, with all due respect, yours are faulty. The pastors are not going from ROTC through boot camp, and I know of no pastor who has done the equivalent of 80-hour weeks of initial residency before certification to practice general medicine, followed by 3-5 years of intensive residency specialization.
WRT your suggestion that candidates who wash out of seminary should be entitled to a $400,000 safety net, that would be precisely the wrong incentive to dangle.
Thanks for the kind reply. Process improvement is a good topic to explore.
My apologies for confusion. Leaving a comment versus writing a full article reply can do that.
Comparisons of clergy to military (and my own to medical field) can get murky.
Each vicarage is different, I had a 6 day + 5 night typical calendar with church duties, visitation, day school classes and chapel, plus running the LCMSU campus ministry program for a Big 12 university. With 13 deaths during my year and numerous late night/early AM calls, it was a full experience. Granted, one’s mileage varies (as the article noted).
Fair enough on the oncology bit, perhaps too far. I do hold the medical school generalist comparison. After being at this for over a decade since entering seminary, I appreciate the mutual respect that I’ve received from medical doctors. One shared this, “We deal the the body, you deal with souls.” Another from a hospice visit, “I have a different MD than you…”
As for the off ramp. After I typed the comment, had a realization from my admission counselor days (brief secular career before seminary). If a seminary wash out is happening, one wouldn’t need an AAS to get started in a job, a 30-40 credit TC (Technical Certificate) could get done in a year. For example, from Ivy Tech Community College (5 minutes from CTSFW [i adjuncted there in seminary]}:
Electrical Specialist, Machine Tool Technology, HVAC, CNC Operator, etc. Complete in as little as one year, $5,530 in tuition (in-state). Out of state is around $9,000.
I’ll admit, calling for work truck and tools may have been a bit too much. I was thinking a safety net closer to a $25-30,000 (depending on in-state/out-of-state tuition issues) for workforce retooling.
If a guy washes out right before Vicarage, he was about to have a paid residency year out in the field. If that kind of budgeting would be available to assist a guy in a transition year, that would be a blessing.
I’d just hope that after 6-8 years of giving up the world’s treasure in pursuit of Ordination for a life time of service, that kind folks would help a guy out that wasn’t deemed fit to go and help him land a job that that provide for himself and family if blessed with one.
I appreciate your discourse on this topic. As you note, analogies are but imperfect comparisons with enough overlap to derive deeper understandings. I'm obviously not advocating for a 1:1 enactment of Special Operations training for Pastors, but for a willingness to look at what we're doing and noting there are certain areas where improvement can be made. The goal of the so-called safety net is to restore hope to those who shouldn't be pastors. With the education they received, along with a little ancillary training to help in another vocation, they would be extraordinary church members who can help their pastor wherever they end up. But this would rely heavily on reinforcing the screening and assessment periods, and attempting to limit those needing a safety net by identifying their vocational gifts earlier when they do not align with the pastoral office. This type of discourse is important if we want to take these ideas seriously, and I really appreciate you taking the time to consider the article and post your response!
Like I typed, process improvement is a good topic to explore.
In my brief secular career, where I got to be a LCMSU Advisor while working as a university Admissions Counselor, I advocated informally for seminary to be like the US Military Academies (full expenses paid [including a small stipend so that folks aren't trying to work while going to seminary], not just tuition as they now have it). Then, the Synod could identify the needs for recruitment of a certain class (expected retirements, deaths, and resignations).
To flesh that out further, if the anticipated needs for 5 years out is 75 pastors, we recruit for that number (probably aim for ~100 for attrition + mission planting). So, if we need 75 (or whatever # it is) for a certain year, well, we recruit for that need and support them versus the "pay to play" system of elective enrollment.
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, Christian life, 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.
Looking forward to your next article! IMO it would be great to see the SOF’s mapped to Paul’s pastoral qualifications and the cure of souls (cura animarum). In the church, “quality” = gospel-forged character formed thru repentance & faith: humility, gentleness, prayer, self-control, shepherding presence from cradle to grave. Bonus: name the incentive problem (seminaries by headcount, DPs by pulpits filled) and the risk of gospel drift — trusting systems instead of Christ.
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.
Dear Kristine, I think that’s a terrible idea. The Verbal does not measure the ability to teach but rather one’s ability to evaluate and understand analytical arguments within a condescend time. Many of the questions are not related to theology in the slightest. Plus it is in written format and teaching is done orally. What would be the minimum score? Who determines this? I think I will stick with God’s qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2 and not some secular test.
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.
Our Lord says in Luke 18:8 will He find faith when He returns. Noah had 8 souls on the Ark. When David took a census what occurred? Numbers do not equal faithfulness. The decline of the LCMS is a decline in Christianity generally and not necessarily an indictment on preaching. It’s not a magical formula. Hearts have grown cold and churches select men who fit their itching ears.
To say the so called evangelical churches are not suffering from this is a stretch but they also have a view of the Pastor as a charismatic leader and not one based on vocatio as God’s man placed in that church. He is faithful by doing his duties day in and day out. Are you suggesting we adopt the views of heretical churches?
The pastor doesn’t need to be this paragon of excellence especially based on secular criteria. Look at the greatest prophet and forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist. Based on your hygienic criteria, he would be excluded although I think you have some valid points. You go just a bit too far with some of them. The Holy Spirit’s criteria for a pastor is based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2. I would add that He even says His apostles speech was not lofty but it proclaimed Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1).
This is an excellent recapitulation of the institutional view pervasive throughout the Synod.
1. Passive fatalism. Inshallah! Christ sows the seed, but has left the harvest to the pastors. All the fields are full to overflowing because Jesus prepared the soil and sent the rain, but the Great Steward's workers are not showing up.
At least you do admit that the churches have grown cold and the pastors are scratching itching ears. Who is supposed to light the fires and let them hear the Word that burns in their hearts?
2. I did not say the Evangelicals are not suffering a malaise, nor did I say that we need to mimic anyone. It was simply to note the rhetorical skills of the average Baptist preacher in TN, not to praise the content.
We must be ruthlessly honest if we value truth. How can we say our men are doing their duties day in and day out when Synod membership and attendance have halved under the same number of pastors?
3. The pastor *does* need to be a paragon of excellence by Christian and secular standards: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DhoD4/3/
Our pastors get to dress like John the Baptist and eat locusts and wild honey when they condemn the king's adulterous incest, knowing their heads will roll, or preach with such power and conviction that thousands of people stream to the remote wilderness to be baptized in defiance of the clucking and preening Pharisees.
We have so many great pastors ready to be unleashed, unshackled, and unbridled to preach in the full power of the Holy Spirit who gives the words and what they accomplish.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic. The first response to your comment is adequate, but I will hit home a few points.
Numbers do not equal faithfulness is true, as growth only happens from the Holy Spirit. But numbers are indicative of a problem, and it would be very hard to convince me there isn't a problem because of the excellent articles from Ad Crucem. If there is a problem, and we need the Holy Spirit to rectify it, and "...faith comes by hearing..." then we must look at those who are instructed to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." If hearts have grown cold, it is because they haven't been preached the Gospel.
I obviously don't want to adopt the views of heretical churches. This is a red herring fallacy. I just want better pastors, and the confidence that the seminaries are doing everything they can to achieve that. I'd ask that you comment on the points in the article instead of introducing other topics.
To Ad Crucem's point, pastors ARE the paragon of excellence. They aren't perfect, of course (but still must be found blameless), but that's why if they commit adultery, for example, they are no longer fit for the cloth, but as LCMS members can still come to church (assuming repentance has occurred, which is also another topic for another time). We are supposed to have a higher standard for pastors. That's a good thing.
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.
The most qualifications are already in the Bible:
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
I think very important that the pastor has zeal to teach and defend the pure doctrine. I hate a lukewarm.
I would also add we should have some physical fitness standards for these men. A fat pastor often undermines himself in many areas.
My snarky comment is to say “ask the Sem wives who shouldn’t be a pastor” and I would have a list for you. And from what I’ve seen, my intuition and observations have been on the right track.
An interesting article. I’ll admit, a bit wary of using too many comparisons to Caesar’s military.
In this pastoral opinion:
If we’re going to be using military analogies, the MDiv formation out of high school is more akin to Military Academy/ROTC plus medical school in oncology with a residency (Note: You can throw in counseling, instructing, recruiting, and numerous other mini-specialities that folks desire in their “generalist”).
You may not like the medicine that we are giving (Word & Sacraments), yet if the cancer of unrepentant sin remains, there is an objective truth to be dealt with.
To the article, I appreciate the offramp suggestion; let’s put some skin in the game…a fully funded AAS degree fellowship, plus a work truck, tools, and living expenses for the two year A.A.S. (welding, electrical, plumbing, etc.) for those “washing out.” If the guy wants to do another training program, so be it. Having that off-ramp if placement isn’t coming would be a blessing. Perhaps some kind folks could raise funds for that.
Thanks, Pastor. Not sure what the Caesar's military reference is?
The article is not about analogies. It's about using the experience of the most efficient educators in the world - the military. They take a callow youth and transform him within 9 months to a leadership role ready for combat, and then provide ladders to increased responsibility.
As analogies go, with all due respect, yours are faulty. The pastors are not going from ROTC through boot camp, and I know of no pastor who has done the equivalent of 80-hour weeks of initial residency before certification to practice general medicine, followed by 3-5 years of intensive residency specialization.
WRT your suggestion that candidates who wash out of seminary should be entitled to a $400,000 safety net, that would be precisely the wrong incentive to dangle.
Thanks for the kind reply. Process improvement is a good topic to explore.
My apologies for confusion. Leaving a comment versus writing a full article reply can do that.
Comparisons of clergy to military (and my own to medical field) can get murky.
Each vicarage is different, I had a 6 day + 5 night typical calendar with church duties, visitation, day school classes and chapel, plus running the LCMSU campus ministry program for a Big 12 university. With 13 deaths during my year and numerous late night/early AM calls, it was a full experience. Granted, one’s mileage varies (as the article noted).
Fair enough on the oncology bit, perhaps too far. I do hold the medical school generalist comparison. After being at this for over a decade since entering seminary, I appreciate the mutual respect that I’ve received from medical doctors. One shared this, “We deal the the body, you deal with souls.” Another from a hospice visit, “I have a different MD than you…”
As for the off ramp. After I typed the comment, had a realization from my admission counselor days (brief secular career before seminary). If a seminary wash out is happening, one wouldn’t need an AAS to get started in a job, a 30-40 credit TC (Technical Certificate) could get done in a year. For example, from Ivy Tech Community College (5 minutes from CTSFW [i adjuncted there in seminary]}:
Electrical Specialist, Machine Tool Technology, HVAC, CNC Operator, etc. Complete in as little as one year, $5,530 in tuition (in-state). Out of state is around $9,000.
I’ll admit, calling for work truck and tools may have been a bit too much. I was thinking a safety net closer to a $25-30,000 (depending on in-state/out-of-state tuition issues) for workforce retooling.
If a guy washes out right before Vicarage, he was about to have a paid residency year out in the field. If that kind of budgeting would be available to assist a guy in a transition year, that would be a blessing.
I’d just hope that after 6-8 years of giving up the world’s treasure in pursuit of Ordination for a life time of service, that kind folks would help a guy out that wasn’t deemed fit to go and help him land a job that that provide for himself and family if blessed with one.
Again, thanks for kind reply.
Pastor,
I appreciate your discourse on this topic. As you note, analogies are but imperfect comparisons with enough overlap to derive deeper understandings. I'm obviously not advocating for a 1:1 enactment of Special Operations training for Pastors, but for a willingness to look at what we're doing and noting there are certain areas where improvement can be made. The goal of the so-called safety net is to restore hope to those who shouldn't be pastors. With the education they received, along with a little ancillary training to help in another vocation, they would be extraordinary church members who can help their pastor wherever they end up. But this would rely heavily on reinforcing the screening and assessment periods, and attempting to limit those needing a safety net by identifying their vocational gifts earlier when they do not align with the pastoral office. This type of discourse is important if we want to take these ideas seriously, and I really appreciate you taking the time to consider the article and post your response!
Jarryd, thanks for your reply.
Like I typed, process improvement is a good topic to explore.
In my brief secular career, where I got to be a LCMSU Advisor while working as a university Admissions Counselor, I advocated informally for seminary to be like the US Military Academies (full expenses paid [including a small stipend so that folks aren't trying to work while going to seminary], not just tuition as they now have it). Then, the Synod could identify the needs for recruitment of a certain class (expected retirements, deaths, and resignations).
To flesh that out further, if the anticipated needs for 5 years out is 75 pastors, we recruit for that number (probably aim for ~100 for attrition + mission planting). So, if we need 75 (or whatever # it is) for a certain year, well, we recruit for that need and support them versus the "pay to play" system of elective enrollment.