Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, have issued simultaneous statements reaffirming only Synod-approved routes to ordination for LCMS pastors.
Thanks for sharing these important letters from our LCMS Seminary Presidents. This could be subtitled “Much Ado About Something.” Both Presidents bring up valid concerns. Both indicate in their own way, “We’ve got this,” whether it’s by squelching a rumor deemed false concerning the closure of the SMP/alternate route programs toward ordination or continuing to guarantee the Lutheran-ness of graduates.
At the same time; both letters are reactive in the main, attempting to thwart or kick to the curb any further action or conversation, along the lines of “nothing to see here - keep moving.” Of course there is something wrong here, and it’s a good time to engage with the stakeholders - some up to many of whom are ex-seminary professors - on the substance of the concerns for the church ody and indeed for the Church when it comes to the content of training and formation of spiritual leaders.
Ask the question - why would the seminaries NOT want to meet with those with concerns about the missional emphasis of training and formation? What’s the true threat? Insufficiently Lutheran? Many of those involved are the same folks who put through generations of pastors. Too edgy? Is it really too edgy to consider alternative worship formats? Really? How dyed-in-the-wool are we?
The fact that some of the larger/largest congregations in the denomination want to be involved in the conversation - that’s a bad thing? Are there not lessons to be learned from large worshiping Missouri Synod Lutheran congregations in leadership development? Come on.
What is called for - because this is much ado about something - is a most serious effort to include a wide band of stakeholders in the future of the denomination in active and ongoing conversation about formation, training and - yes - best practices for stemming the tide of diminution of membership. That course of action would be more than a pleasant surprise. It would be the breath of the Spirit.
Please permit me to speak from the perspective of someone who started training for the pastoral ministry over fifty years ago at Saint Paul’s Lutheran High School (formerly Saint Paul’s College High) in Concordia, MO. During my ministry, I served in the parish and Navy chaplaincy. As a Navy chaplain, I served as an Action Officer for chaplain disciplinary conduct. Without going into detail or violating confidentiality, I am able to support the position of both Concordia Seminary Saint Louis and Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne. At one time, at least 10% of the Navy Chaplain Corps came under disciplinary action. There is something to be said for the experience of sitting at the feet of instructors who have a vested interest in the health of the Church. I observed that each year at the Seminary, a student or students departed. These situations compelled me to focus on two portions of Scripture: Do not lay hands on anyone too quickly and on the basis of two or three let something be established. Ever since Pentecost, Satan has attempted to destroy the Church one pastor at a time and one congregation at a time. It is essential that we take spiritual warfare seriously. It is essential that we train and equip our pastors to don the full armor of God. As Dr. Theodore Laetsch stated in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, many errors have slipped into the Church from the pulpit to the pew. I am grateful to the Lord God for the faculties of Saint Paul’s College High, Saint Paul’s College, Concordia College Ann Arbor and Concordia Seminary. They were fully invested in the long term health and wellbeing of the Church.
Where do concerns around unionism come into play with the LCMS pastors in particular who are engaged in promoting or supporting in one way or the other?
One case was addressed publicly, probably too harshly, but that is a consequence of a pretty dramatic shift in Synod discipline and control impulses because Concordia University Texas went full renegade. The unintended consequence of CUT’s rebellion is to squeeze non-conforming individuals and institutions into playing by the rules. It seems those who want to keep testing the boundaries are not going to be coddled anymore. Not perfect, but very different from 3, 5, 10, 12, 25 years ago…
Somehow I doubt that. Perhaps it is because the Synod prefer to handle so much in the dark, but from my perspective the Synod is highly selective in who and how it disciplines.
Staying blackpilled on some Synod stuff is easy, and the frustrations are understandable. However, zoom out. The Overton Window has shifted materially since August 2023. Large institutions are complex and always take time to resume their intended course - the rudder has turned for the LCMS, even if the bow is not yet pointing in the intended direction.
What’s the black pill? Disagreeing with your view that the Synod has dramatically shifted from being tolerant of any non-conforming individuals and institutions to not coddling those who test the boundaries? Give me a break. Nice dismissal, but it’s an observation and your response doesn’t change my mind that the leadership, which has not changed, has somehow fundamentally changed who they are. I think this is where I say something about put not your trust in princes or something, especially given very public comments that have come from some of them. Yes, the Overton Window has shifted, and I’m sure some of the leaders are playing a political game (in fact some have publicly spoken about how political they all are) in responding to that change. Whether the LCMS gets pointed in the right direction isn’t ultimately my concern. It isn’t important that a large, complex institution survives. It’s that attitude of putting the survival of the institution as a primary concern that has us where we have been and are right now, and it is that attitude that has been consistently present in the comments from leadership, most prominently form Harrison. I asked about how we might view this from a lens of concern about unionism on an individual pastor level, and it’s turned into something about whether the Synod leadership is who got us here will right the ship?
Things have shifted, which should stop the blackpilling. What's the alternative? Burn down everything the predecessors created over ~200 years for instant purification? What do you have left after that? 45 micro synods and 30% of the current weekly attendance?
Let me know what you would do as Synod President starting tomorrow.
Again, what’s the black pill? That I don’t think holding together a diverse group of congregations under the brand of LCMS should be the telos of the Synod or an individual members of an LCMS congregation? I’m not advocating burning anything down, but neither do I think saving the LCMS brand and the organization is my preeminent concern. Yes, I hope the LCMS continues and that my children can go to an LCMS congregation. But neither will I advise my children to go to an LCMS congregation simply because it is an LCMS congregation. The LCMS brand isn’t a consistent brand to apply today, and it might not be tomorrow. I will advise to look to substance rather than professed affiliation. Regardless, the first thing I would do as Synod President starting tomorrow would be to put my pen down and close my mouth and pray that simply because I have a podium in front of me I wouldn’t have the temptation to speak out of turn.
How does this comport with the AALC's online MDiv program? The AALC is in full altar and pulpit fellowship with us, and though they are tiny, their online Seminary might provide a targeted counter for the ILT arguments about accessibility, without sacrificing a single inch of ground on sound theology and practice.
The LCMS has rejected AALC's efforts to make its online program an automatic route to certification for ministry in the LCMS. I do not have exact details, but any young man considering the AALC online program and expecting entry to the LCMS should first speak with one of the seminaries.
I am not familiar with LHOS. I am, however, familiar with ILT, involved with the other program. Again, I don't really know much about that other program; I teach historical and systematic theology in ILT's undergraduate program and theological German in its doctoral program.
I did my own graduate theological work through ILT. My professors were without exception solid in their subjects. Some of my colleagues at ILT are LCMS; at least one is an emeritus professor from one of the Concordias. I have encountered no doctrinal issues that are not also present within LCMS among graduates of the Concordias; my one quarrel has been with some Fordeanism--which one can hear from more than a few LCMS pastors, and, I would guess, professors. I do not teach Fordeanism in any way, nor do I teach a historical/critical view of Scripture.
No; unless LCMS changes its decision at the 2013 convention, graduates of this program will not find it easy to become pastor of an LCMS congregation. My call as pastor of an LCMS church was based on a procedure no longer permitted. During my time as pastor there, the other pastors of that circuit and district came to know me. I preached at a district pastors' conference and celebrated the Sacrament there. Many, perhaps most, of those reading this know me, and know that they have never heard a heterodox word out of my mouth and have never read a heterodox word I have written. What happened to my seminary application was in part my own fault; what happened to my two colloquy applications rests with those who blocked them.
But can one get a solid theological education at ILT? Absolutely.
Thank you for summarizing both leadership statements so clearly. One thing I continue to wonder about in these public exchanges is how LCMS laypeople, those sitting in the pews, are supposed to make sense of all this in real time.
Institutional statements like these are essential for clarifying governance and doctrinal responsibility, but I wonder if there is more the church could be doing to equip congregations to navigate the practical and pastoral fallout that often accompanies these kinds of structural conflicts.
Many ordinary church members likely have no idea how these changes affect their pastors, their congregations, or their long-term spiritual care. I hope future communications will address not just governance, but the spiritual implications for those who have trusted the church to shepherd them well.
Thanks for sharing these important letters from our LCMS Seminary Presidents. This could be subtitled “Much Ado About Something.” Both Presidents bring up valid concerns. Both indicate in their own way, “We’ve got this,” whether it’s by squelching a rumor deemed false concerning the closure of the SMP/alternate route programs toward ordination or continuing to guarantee the Lutheran-ness of graduates.
At the same time; both letters are reactive in the main, attempting to thwart or kick to the curb any further action or conversation, along the lines of “nothing to see here - keep moving.” Of course there is something wrong here, and it’s a good time to engage with the stakeholders - some up to many of whom are ex-seminary professors - on the substance of the concerns for the church ody and indeed for the Church when it comes to the content of training and formation of spiritual leaders.
Ask the question - why would the seminaries NOT want to meet with those with concerns about the missional emphasis of training and formation? What’s the true threat? Insufficiently Lutheran? Many of those involved are the same folks who put through generations of pastors. Too edgy? Is it really too edgy to consider alternative worship formats? Really? How dyed-in-the-wool are we?
The fact that some of the larger/largest congregations in the denomination want to be involved in the conversation - that’s a bad thing? Are there not lessons to be learned from large worshiping Missouri Synod Lutheran congregations in leadership development? Come on.
What is called for - because this is much ado about something - is a most serious effort to include a wide band of stakeholders in the future of the denomination in active and ongoing conversation about formation, training and - yes - best practices for stemming the tide of diminution of membership. That course of action would be more than a pleasant surprise. It would be the breath of the Spirit.
Dave, on this we agree heartily (see my post).
Greetings,
Please permit me to speak from the perspective of someone who started training for the pastoral ministry over fifty years ago at Saint Paul’s Lutheran High School (formerly Saint Paul’s College High) in Concordia, MO. During my ministry, I served in the parish and Navy chaplaincy. As a Navy chaplain, I served as an Action Officer for chaplain disciplinary conduct. Without going into detail or violating confidentiality, I am able to support the position of both Concordia Seminary Saint Louis and Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne. At one time, at least 10% of the Navy Chaplain Corps came under disciplinary action. There is something to be said for the experience of sitting at the feet of instructors who have a vested interest in the health of the Church. I observed that each year at the Seminary, a student or students departed. These situations compelled me to focus on two portions of Scripture: Do not lay hands on anyone too quickly and on the basis of two or three let something be established. Ever since Pentecost, Satan has attempted to destroy the Church one pastor at a time and one congregation at a time. It is essential that we take spiritual warfare seriously. It is essential that we train and equip our pastors to don the full armor of God. As Dr. Theodore Laetsch stated in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, many errors have slipped into the Church from the pulpit to the pew. I am grateful to the Lord God for the faculties of Saint Paul’s College High, Saint Paul’s College, Concordia College Ann Arbor and Concordia Seminary. They were fully invested in the long term health and wellbeing of the Church.
The Lord be with you.
Rev. Dr. M. G. Steiner, Emeritus
CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.)
Where do concerns around unionism come into play with the LCMS pastors in particular who are engaged in promoting or supporting in one way or the other?
One case was addressed publicly, probably too harshly, but that is a consequence of a pretty dramatic shift in Synod discipline and control impulses because Concordia University Texas went full renegade. The unintended consequence of CUT’s rebellion is to squeeze non-conforming individuals and institutions into playing by the rules. It seems those who want to keep testing the boundaries are not going to be coddled anymore. Not perfect, but very different from 3, 5, 10, 12, 25 years ago…
Somehow I doubt that. Perhaps it is because the Synod prefer to handle so much in the dark, but from my perspective the Synod is highly selective in who and how it disciplines.
Staying blackpilled on some Synod stuff is easy, and the frustrations are understandable. However, zoom out. The Overton Window has shifted materially since August 2023. Large institutions are complex and always take time to resume their intended course - the rudder has turned for the LCMS, even if the bow is not yet pointing in the intended direction.
What’s the black pill? Disagreeing with your view that the Synod has dramatically shifted from being tolerant of any non-conforming individuals and institutions to not coddling those who test the boundaries? Give me a break. Nice dismissal, but it’s an observation and your response doesn’t change my mind that the leadership, which has not changed, has somehow fundamentally changed who they are. I think this is where I say something about put not your trust in princes or something, especially given very public comments that have come from some of them. Yes, the Overton Window has shifted, and I’m sure some of the leaders are playing a political game (in fact some have publicly spoken about how political they all are) in responding to that change. Whether the LCMS gets pointed in the right direction isn’t ultimately my concern. It isn’t important that a large, complex institution survives. It’s that attitude of putting the survival of the institution as a primary concern that has us where we have been and are right now, and it is that attitude that has been consistently present in the comments from leadership, most prominently form Harrison. I asked about how we might view this from a lens of concern about unionism on an individual pastor level, and it’s turned into something about whether the Synod leadership is who got us here will right the ship?
Things have shifted, which should stop the blackpilling. What's the alternative? Burn down everything the predecessors created over ~200 years for instant purification? What do you have left after that? 45 micro synods and 30% of the current weekly attendance?
Let me know what you would do as Synod President starting tomorrow.
Again, what’s the black pill? That I don’t think holding together a diverse group of congregations under the brand of LCMS should be the telos of the Synod or an individual members of an LCMS congregation? I’m not advocating burning anything down, but neither do I think saving the LCMS brand and the organization is my preeminent concern. Yes, I hope the LCMS continues and that my children can go to an LCMS congregation. But neither will I advise my children to go to an LCMS congregation simply because it is an LCMS congregation. The LCMS brand isn’t a consistent brand to apply today, and it might not be tomorrow. I will advise to look to substance rather than professed affiliation. Regardless, the first thing I would do as Synod President starting tomorrow would be to put my pen down and close my mouth and pray that simply because I have a podium in front of me I wouldn’t have the temptation to speak out of turn.
How does this comport with the AALC's online MDiv program? The AALC is in full altar and pulpit fellowship with us, and though they are tiny, their online Seminary might provide a targeted counter for the ILT arguments about accessibility, without sacrificing a single inch of ground on sound theology and practice.
The LCMS has rejected AALC's efforts to make its online program an automatic route to certification for ministry in the LCMS. I do not have exact details, but any young man considering the AALC online program and expecting entry to the LCMS should first speak with one of the seminaries.
thanks for the clarification.
I am not familiar with LHOS. I am, however, familiar with ILT, involved with the other program. Again, I don't really know much about that other program; I teach historical and systematic theology in ILT's undergraduate program and theological German in its doctoral program.
I did my own graduate theological work through ILT. My professors were without exception solid in their subjects. Some of my colleagues at ILT are LCMS; at least one is an emeritus professor from one of the Concordias. I have encountered no doctrinal issues that are not also present within LCMS among graduates of the Concordias; my one quarrel has been with some Fordeanism--which one can hear from more than a few LCMS pastors, and, I would guess, professors. I do not teach Fordeanism in any way, nor do I teach a historical/critical view of Scripture.
No; unless LCMS changes its decision at the 2013 convention, graduates of this program will not find it easy to become pastor of an LCMS congregation. My call as pastor of an LCMS church was based on a procedure no longer permitted. During my time as pastor there, the other pastors of that circuit and district came to know me. I preached at a district pastors' conference and celebrated the Sacrament there. Many, perhaps most, of those reading this know me, and know that they have never heard a heterodox word out of my mouth and have never read a heterodox word I have written. What happened to my seminary application was in part my own fault; what happened to my two colloquy applications rests with those who blocked them.
But can one get a solid theological education at ILT? Absolutely.
Thank you for summarizing both leadership statements so clearly. One thing I continue to wonder about in these public exchanges is how LCMS laypeople, those sitting in the pews, are supposed to make sense of all this in real time.
Institutional statements like these are essential for clarifying governance and doctrinal responsibility, but I wonder if there is more the church could be doing to equip congregations to navigate the practical and pastoral fallout that often accompanies these kinds of structural conflicts.
Many ordinary church members likely have no idea how these changes affect their pastors, their congregations, or their long-term spiritual care. I hope future communications will address not just governance, but the spiritual implications for those who have trusted the church to shepherd them well.