Clergy Surplus vs Parishioner Shortage: Another Piece of the Puzzle

Set apart to serve or to stay close to Mom and Dad?

Who Decides Where and How Pastors Serve? A Comparison by Polity

Building on the comparative framework outlined previously, this article examines how the LCMS’s call structure functions amid demographic decline and institutional strain.

---

Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) pastors enjoy greater personal autonomy and latitude in deciding which calls to accept or reject compared with many denominations. Initial placement out of seminary may be more constrained, and declining a first placement call can delay eligibility for subsequent calls, but thereafter, the call process has come to resemble, in practice, a job market for a defined skill set.

In a broad sense, the LCMS market for pastors first divides along liturgical preference, often expressed through differences in worship practice, parish culture, and tolerance for traditional or contemporary forms, sometimes labeled ‘confessional’ versus ‘missional.’ Along that spectrum, congregations will pursue the most talented pastors on the roster that their budgets can afford. Several factors shape the current pastor “market”:

1. Social media presence and projection create a sorting function for pastors who develop international, national, regional, and local visibility. Prior to personalized Internet channels, this sorting function operated through different institutional signals: academic publishing (strongly associated with seminary prestige and signaling for a faculty appointment), book publishing (heavily influenced by who exercised functional control over Concordia Publishing House (CPH)), and visibility in Synod events and outlets like conventions, Lutheran Hour Ministry, KFUO Radio, and para church ministries including the leading Recognized Service Organizations (RSOs).

2. Overall, LCMS congregations are increasingly less homogeneous, even within the traditional stronghold regions in the Midwest. There is a stark divide between a minority of thriving, younger, and wealthy parishes vs a majority of ailing, aging, and financially embattled churches. Overlaid on this has been the emergence of class dynamics that were once much less apparent.

3. There has been a breakdown of the formal paper-driven process. Increasingly, Missouri congregations will “test the market” by putting out feelers to preferred pastors to see if they are open to a new call. Conversely, there are multiple informal pastor networks where information about potential calls is shared with friends and peers.

   1. Informal call lists are developed within congregations by individuals who are networked with people they trust to offer a first assessment of pastors likely to be a good fit. The Pastor’s Information Form (PIF) and Self-Evaluation Tool (SET)¹ are still used, but many congregations will arrive at their “shortlist” long before the PIF and SET are in hand.

   2. Similar dynamics are in play in Synod institutions, partners, and agencies. The church is just as much about “who you know” as any commercial field.

4. As much as congregations are becoming proactive, pastors are also becoming more solicitous and selective. Many hope to one day get a call from a “Rolls-Royce congregation” offering a big salary and generous benefits, along with a marching army of supporting staff and assistant pastors. However, well-resourced congregations are increasingly rare as the Synod continues to shrink. The survivors cluster as “mega churches” that leverage the most American of things - economies of scale.

   1. There are also ministry opportunities outside the parish, with dozens and dozens of “calls” available through Synod entities and partners.

Mobility vs Stability

Decades ago, it was fairly common for parish pastors to move quite frequently and not be range-bound. The mobility was driven by socio-economic factors: parsonages had not yet been sold in large numbers to fill funding gaps, and a broader social network enabled pastors’ wives and families to integrate and settle more easily across different regions of the country. There was also a better balance of active pastors to active congregations. Today, all of that is observably less so for dozens of layered reasons.

Consequently, as Synod membership and attendance shrink, an interesting dynamic has emerged: there are an unprecedented number of empty pulpits (according to informal district-level reporting in some regions, it’s over one-fifth of pulpits), yet the Synod has a large surplus of pastors (10% growth in rostered pastors per member congregations compared with a halving of attendees per pastor over the last 20 years).

1. Many congregations without pastors are on the verge of closing and simply cannot afford a full-time pastor as membership ages out of its high-earning years, and with very few youngsters to replace them. That “margin squeeze”, combined with old buildings that drain resources, has left many congregations functionally bankrupt, and they are marking time until it’s impossible to continue.

   1. A number of these congregations are only receiving any form of Word and Sacrament Ministry because “retired” pastors are filling vacancies at low or no cost.²

      1. It raises questions about the order and sustainability of their ministry, since pastors are ordinarily expected to be formally attached to an altar under a rightly ordered call.

2. The average age of Missouri pastors is estimated to be nearly 60, so the roster has a large overhang of rostered pastors who are declining in capacity and capability. Statistically, there will be a dramatic attrition cliff in the next decade because of death and disability (estimated to be a loss of 1,220-1,320 pastors by 2036, or approximately ¼ of the current roster).

   1. That will partly address the pastor surplus, but not the parishioner shortage that is projected to persist for decades, and, with it, there will be an increasing number of impecunious congregations and a corresponding high failure/closure rate.

Ad Crucem Wall Crucifix

Missouri’s Untended Sheep

Within those general facts lies an additional major problem. I recently spoke with a District President whose district has a large percentage of congregations with vacancies that keep having calls returned. The parishes are not the usual suspects: they pay at the recommended district scale, offer retirement plans and health care, and have parsonages. That is increasingly valuable and unusual, so why are the churches going without shepherds for so long?

Evidently, pastors do not want to move to this district because it is relatively remote and inconvenient for seeing family regularly, reflecting a new ability to be more selective. That is a product of the pastor shortage and the Synod's overarching demographic realities, but this preference structure is incompatible with Scripture and the Synod’s stated mission priorities (1 Peter 5:2–3 is the flock chosen or given?).

At the risk of indulging in impressionistic sociology, we can observe that a majority of LCMS pastors grew up within 500 miles of Chicago, and so did their wives. Many attended Lutheran parochial schools and Concordia colleges, and then graduated from the three Synod seminaries (including Springfield), all within an average of 200 miles of Chicago. That should not be interpreted as a moral or missional failing, it’s just a cultural artefact. Consequently, the formation pipeline remains geographically and culturally concentrated. So, it is hardly surprising that so many men will select, when possible, for criteria related to what is familiar and comfortable rather than what is necessary. Consider, however, Matthew 19:27–29 and Luke 9:57–62.

It is an enormous problem that underscores a previously manageable but now significant weakness. Where Methodists focus on never leaving a parish vacant for long, LCMS Lutherans depend on the decision of a pastor and his family (which is interpreted as “Divine will”). As pastors age out of the system, there is increasing freedom for younger men to select a parish close to home rather than go where the fields are crying out for a harvest.

With the introduction of free tuition at both Synod seminaries, it seems an opportunity was missed to exchange that benefit for some reciprocity. Perhaps, the Synod should have asked for a 5 to 7-year commitment to be assigned where the Council of Presidents determines the greatest needs are. The Synod cannot halt its decline unless and until its pastors cease to be Midwestern men in their habits, inclinations, and desires. In that vein, why do we have a greater mission focus on the Dominican Republic than on Rhode Island or Maine?

Conclusion

The LCMS is beginning to confront the predictable consequences of a polity with a split personality in a time of rapid membership decline: the call is theologically binding but administratively optional. We have retained a high doctrine of the call, but have eroded the “sending” mentioned in Romans 10:14–15 and Acts 13:2–4 and have become incapable of directing it toward demonstrable need. There is a real risk that pastoral freedom has been replaced by pastoral drift, in which structural factors lead us to override the Great Commission, leaving entire regions without Word and Sacrament ministry despite a headline surplus of pastors.

While a congregational polity has many blessings over an episcopal one, the data make it clear that the final cost of the inherited Waltherian polity framework is borne by congregations rather than pastors. Parishes are dying off like abandoned parents in nursing homes, living their final years without sacramental care.

Missouri is never going to accept episcopal absolutism, but something needs to be done to balance a call the current concept of radical “contractual” freedom for an LCMS pastor. A purely voluntary market for calls cannot sustain a national church body suffering demographic collapse, evangelistic stagnation, and selective placement. Free tuition without reciprocal obligation, centralized formation without coordinated placement, and mission rhetoric without domestic application are intrinsically unhelpful to Christ’s church. Ultimately, there will have to be some form of rebinding between pastoral formation and placement to ensure neglected areas are receiving Word and Sacrament Ministry (John 10:12–13; Ezekiel 34:2–6).

---

Cover image, Sora.

1. The Pastor’s Information Form (PIF) and Self-Evaluation Tool (SET) are the primary confidential documents used by the LCMS for the call process. Managed via the Lutheran Church Worker (LCW) or Church Worker Update (CWU) systems, the PIF tracks biographical and service data, while the SET records theological and ministerial stances. These forms are typically reviewed annually or triennially and are utilized by District Presidents and call committees to assess candidate suitability.

2. Generally, there are three pay structures in operation: Full-time work, compensated vacancy work, and compensated pulpit supply. Retired guys are usually paid as pulpit supply per Sunday, but with no other pastoral duties.