The Gottesdienst Crowd welcomes back Jarryd Allison—former MARSOC officer and current software engineer—for a conversation with David Petersen on pastoral formation.
Pr. Petersen did a splendid job of speaking as a true Seelsorger.
The military image doesn't work for the pastoral office. While one does find the "militia Christi" image in the early church and in hymnody ("all newborn soldiers of the Crucified," "stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross"), it is not a biblical metaphor except when looking at the soldier's equipment (Ephesians 6), and always with reference to the baptized priesthood of believers not the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. "Shepherd" is the dominant image and should remain so when speaking of "pastoral formation" and the pastoral office in general. Leave the military to the ordo politicus of the temporal kingdom, where it belongs.
It is understandable to be wary of taking cues from institutions that seem alien or distant from the preaching office's core functions and purpose. However, we should always be ready to learn from organizations where excellence is essential to mission outcomes, and where skills and instincts must be deliberately cultivated and sustained. It doesn't mean we expect our pastors to march, run obstacle courses, or wear camouflage; it simply means applying the best we know about building outstanding performance in young males facing adverse circumstances.
Likewise, the shepherd example can be overstretched. Shepherds were not bookish, soft men. They had to be trained for hard physical tasks, and the role primarily involved being an impoverished wage earner who lived like a hermit under harsh conditions. Should our pastors excel at killing wolves and bears with slingshots?
The overarching concern is to be honest with ourselves about evaluating the man for the office. Some men should not be sent into the fields because they never develop the required shepherding skills, and we must be kind and honest enough not to turn them into cannon fodder because we have a graduation treadmill.
I suppose when one properly spiritualizes (in the right sense of that word) the metaphor, it might work:
We do expect our pastors to march (preach, teach, practice) according to the cadence of Scripture and Confessions and to march in time, that is, walk together synodically.
We do expect our pastors to run obstacle courses, that is, maintain a healthy family life, a vigorous congregational life, and a rich devotional life all the while keeping eyes firmly fixed on the Cross and juggling the often conflicting expectations of God, synod, and congregation.
We do expect our pastors to wear uniforms as well as camouflage, that is, the historic vestments of the office, when called for, and to blend in with the surrounding culture when covert operations are needed.
We do expect our pastors to be both well-read, spiritually fit (physically helps too, to an extent), to live frugal lives at low income while supporting their families, to be in the world yet not of the world, and to know when to withdraw like a desert father when circumstances call for it.
As for killing wolves and bears with slingshots and five smooth stones, that is done every time a pastor enters the pulpit or speaks the Word of God with the authority of office.
The church has already suffered much for baptizing methods and models from the business world. Scripture, church history, and the catholic tradition provide much better models, in my estimation.
That's great. My only quibble is that not all pastors are killing bears and wolves from the pulpit. Some are leaping out of it to devour the sheep, some are too inept to wield the slingshot. We must fix the deficiencies.
A salutary first step would be to define precisely what those "deficiencies" are. I would welcome an open colloquium between pastors, laity, district presidents, and the church's academic theologians to constructively discuss these things in the way of the "mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren." Some deficiencies might be remedied at the seminary level. But most tend to creep in later in the course of pastoral practice.
I find this to be unrealistic. I would assume that the difference in the political leadership certainly changes things! DEI! Could you imagine this in the USMC? This is the same in the church, and so with different administrations you have pastors trained with varied emphases. This Spec OPS model might be possible perhaps in a smaller synod, but not the LCMS. Way back even before I was a pastor I always thought the bigger is better ideal of the 80's was not good. The LCMS will never be healthy until it stops holding itself together at all costs.
As I was taught, it is never a good thing to go after a call and try and make it happen, so too with making a pastor according to some criteria other than what is simply given in Scripture. I always understood that the office makes the man, not the other way around. Is this a financial issue at heart? Not enough ROI?
I personally think that this attrition rate is the way it always has been (just read the New Testament!) and we are unwise to try and put our wisdom to the task. Otherwise we are saying God's choice for a called man is not a divine call! That is what you are inadvertently saying here. Back in the 1970's it was all about psychology. How many Briggs and Meyer's personality tests did I take? The Bible commentaries were full of profiles of the personalities in the Bible!
I was well trained for the ministry. Both theologically and practically. Did this fit my call? No, but not because what I was sent to do was not right for the job, but because the congregation was wanting to go in a different direction. Could someone else have done a better job? But I was called there. Or was I? So could someone else have been better suited? Yeah, most likely, but I could have had some help from the district too. Got none. That has nothing to do on how I was trained. I don't think we need to try and meet every fad of attack. We need to be trained in what never changes. This culture change "stuff" gets met on the local level in winkle, district (if they were doing theology instead of politics) and conferences. If we try and do this wholesale we will just be chasing our own tails and miss the mark every time.
My education at Ft. Wayne at the time (2002-2006) was very good. Could I name some areas of improvement? Sure. But who couldn't? I hear that they have lessoned the rigor since then? For shame! That is very unfortunate! And this SMP stuff is going to come back and bite in the not too distant future. Lord have Mercy. Stop messing with stuff! Please.
Conclusion? The attrition was always there. The problem is in the divided synod and lack of support from the leadership with erring congregations. My cents anyway.
A friend wisely commented to me: "If there is a temporal solution, we should strive for it. However, some matters must be left to the will of God. It is in this will that we trust." The Office is Divine. The Lord does provide. This isn't an excuse for deficiencies. Still, it is a good reminder of what we are dealing with and of our limits.
Pr. Petersen did a splendid job of speaking as a true Seelsorger.
The military image doesn't work for the pastoral office. While one does find the "militia Christi" image in the early church and in hymnody ("all newborn soldiers of the Crucified," "stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross"), it is not a biblical metaphor except when looking at the soldier's equipment (Ephesians 6), and always with reference to the baptized priesthood of believers not the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. "Shepherd" is the dominant image and should remain so when speaking of "pastoral formation" and the pastoral office in general. Leave the military to the ordo politicus of the temporal kingdom, where it belongs.
It is understandable to be wary of taking cues from institutions that seem alien or distant from the preaching office's core functions and purpose. However, we should always be ready to learn from organizations where excellence is essential to mission outcomes, and where skills and instincts must be deliberately cultivated and sustained. It doesn't mean we expect our pastors to march, run obstacle courses, or wear camouflage; it simply means applying the best we know about building outstanding performance in young males facing adverse circumstances.
Likewise, the shepherd example can be overstretched. Shepherds were not bookish, soft men. They had to be trained for hard physical tasks, and the role primarily involved being an impoverished wage earner who lived like a hermit under harsh conditions. Should our pastors excel at killing wolves and bears with slingshots?
The overarching concern is to be honest with ourselves about evaluating the man for the office. Some men should not be sent into the fields because they never develop the required shepherding skills, and we must be kind and honest enough not to turn them into cannon fodder because we have a graduation treadmill.
I suppose when one properly spiritualizes (in the right sense of that word) the metaphor, it might work:
We do expect our pastors to march (preach, teach, practice) according to the cadence of Scripture and Confessions and to march in time, that is, walk together synodically.
We do expect our pastors to run obstacle courses, that is, maintain a healthy family life, a vigorous congregational life, and a rich devotional life all the while keeping eyes firmly fixed on the Cross and juggling the often conflicting expectations of God, synod, and congregation.
We do expect our pastors to wear uniforms as well as camouflage, that is, the historic vestments of the office, when called for, and to blend in with the surrounding culture when covert operations are needed.
We do expect our pastors to be both well-read, spiritually fit (physically helps too, to an extent), to live frugal lives at low income while supporting their families, to be in the world yet not of the world, and to know when to withdraw like a desert father when circumstances call for it.
As for killing wolves and bears with slingshots and five smooth stones, that is done every time a pastor enters the pulpit or speaks the Word of God with the authority of office.
The church has already suffered much for baptizing methods and models from the business world. Scripture, church history, and the catholic tradition provide much better models, in my estimation.
That's great. My only quibble is that not all pastors are killing bears and wolves from the pulpit. Some are leaping out of it to devour the sheep, some are too inept to wield the slingshot. We must fix the deficiencies.
A salutary first step would be to define precisely what those "deficiencies" are. I would welcome an open colloquium between pastors, laity, district presidents, and the church's academic theologians to constructively discuss these things in the way of the "mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren." Some deficiencies might be remedied at the seminary level. But most tend to creep in later in the course of pastoral practice.
I find this to be unrealistic. I would assume that the difference in the political leadership certainly changes things! DEI! Could you imagine this in the USMC? This is the same in the church, and so with different administrations you have pastors trained with varied emphases. This Spec OPS model might be possible perhaps in a smaller synod, but not the LCMS. Way back even before I was a pastor I always thought the bigger is better ideal of the 80's was not good. The LCMS will never be healthy until it stops holding itself together at all costs.
As I was taught, it is never a good thing to go after a call and try and make it happen, so too with making a pastor according to some criteria other than what is simply given in Scripture. I always understood that the office makes the man, not the other way around. Is this a financial issue at heart? Not enough ROI?
I personally think that this attrition rate is the way it always has been (just read the New Testament!) and we are unwise to try and put our wisdom to the task. Otherwise we are saying God's choice for a called man is not a divine call! That is what you are inadvertently saying here. Back in the 1970's it was all about psychology. How many Briggs and Meyer's personality tests did I take? The Bible commentaries were full of profiles of the personalities in the Bible!
I was well trained for the ministry. Both theologically and practically. Did this fit my call? No, but not because what I was sent to do was not right for the job, but because the congregation was wanting to go in a different direction. Could someone else have done a better job? But I was called there. Or was I? So could someone else have been better suited? Yeah, most likely, but I could have had some help from the district too. Got none. That has nothing to do on how I was trained. I don't think we need to try and meet every fad of attack. We need to be trained in what never changes. This culture change "stuff" gets met on the local level in winkle, district (if they were doing theology instead of politics) and conferences. If we try and do this wholesale we will just be chasing our own tails and miss the mark every time.
My education at Ft. Wayne at the time (2002-2006) was very good. Could I name some areas of improvement? Sure. But who couldn't? I hear that they have lessoned the rigor since then? For shame! That is very unfortunate! And this SMP stuff is going to come back and bite in the not too distant future. Lord have Mercy. Stop messing with stuff! Please.
Conclusion? The attrition was always there. The problem is in the divided synod and lack of support from the leadership with erring congregations. My cents anyway.
A friend wisely commented to me: "If there is a temporal solution, we should strive for it. However, some matters must be left to the will of God. It is in this will that we trust." The Office is Divine. The Lord does provide. This isn't an excuse for deficiencies. Still, it is a good reminder of what we are dealing with and of our limits.