Thanks, Kristine. Jarryd Allison has written several articles on AdC News about the need to raise standards for our pastors.
We are doing some additional data collection to eventually look into the metrics you mention.
The congregation with 30 is probably easy so solve with a combination of solutions that don’t require a full time pastor for just them. The inverse is the congregation of 3,000 where the sacraments are, often, not treated with the reverence required because it becomes a production line throughput problem.
It is truly extraordinary to witness a pastor and former district president break the Eighth with such impunity. Rev. Benke, you are disparaging the entire board and executive of CSL. This is unbecoming behavior, and you should repent of it.
Above, you accused me of lying and the BoR of sending me on "an assignment". Baseless. No evidence. But you throw it out there; "just asking questions about, you know." You've never bothered to call Dr. Egger or Pr. Mons. You launch into the worst construction with one conspiracy theory after the next, as is your persistent habit.
You hand-wave about perceived and imagined conflicts of interest as if the BoR is too dumb or conspiratorial to know whether I am in conflict, or that I am so rogue that I disrespect policies and the handbook. Go ahead, file a complaint.
What's fascinating to me, Mr. Benke, is how you contiually spew so much animosity and yet continue to label yourself a "Rev." Who in the world looks to you for guidance, sir? I feel sorry for them.
Dr. Benke, here’s a challenge. I have been writing about Synodical goings on since 2014, starting at Steadfast Lutherans. Over the decade+, I have made many recommendations. Can you name a single recommendation or proposal I have made that any Synod institution or Synod official has taken up? I’ll help out; the answer is ZERO. The response of Synodocrats to my work has nearly always been that I don’t understand how the sausage is made, AKA, leave the important things to the insiders and don’t meddle.
I'm reminded here of the admonition of the sainted Rev. Dr. Norman Nagel, with whom I spent a lot of time both in the classroom and in private conversation. Dr. Nagel would always ask, "What is your Amt?" To what have you been called and whom do you serve? I haven't always asked myself that question, and it has netted more trouble for me than the particular matter was worth. Perhaps the reason that none of your recommendations or proposals have been heard by the Synod is that no one was asking you. Just a thought from one troubler of Israel to another.
Yeah, that’s good. Two caveats: a) I have never expected or needed a response to any of my proposals and recommendations. I have made them because I continually think about these things and always prefer specific solutions over easy criticism. I serve God, and my calling is for my great, great grandchildren to have an orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Church to be baptized, catechized, and married in. b) The Amt question touches on the root of a cultural problem in the LCMS - it is assumed that if you are not wearing the sash of this office or the chain of that office, then you need permission to have a public opinion, hence Rev. Benke’s framing and phrasing. For whatever reason, my writing about LCMS issues has attracted a large following, especially among the laity: ~115,000 views last month and the unique readers reached ~88,000.
The issue of “Amt” is not necessarily limited to the clergy nor does it pertain solely to the office of the holy ministry. It also does not mean that the laity have no voice in ecclesial matters. They most certainly do, as your election to a Board of Regents indicates. We have laity serving on all boards of the synod, including the CTCR and BoD. In general, the laity are pretty much free to say and do whatever they wish, so long as they don’t run afoul of their pastor. Congregation autonomy protects them from synodical repercussions. The clergy are not so free, by virtue of their office. Holding synodical office, such as that of Regent, does restrict one’s liberty to speak as freely as one might otherwise wish, a lesson I’ve learned the hard way on at least one occasion.
A related issue of “Amt” has to do with self-publishing and self-broadcasting. This is a new variable in church life. Anyone can publish and broadcast with nothing more than a cell phone and an internet account. It used to be that all we had was Christian News to stir up the muck; now anyone can do it from his or her kitchen table. Is it good? Not sure. Do 88,000 people need to weigh in on pastoral formation or the handling of a situation in a given congregation? Does this contribute to good order and build up the Body of Christ for works of service? Or does it foment division and needless controversy? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think they need to be reflected upon.
I think Tim adequately and accurately addressed his role as a regent of CSL. Regents are not forbidden from holding positions and opinions on various issues and publishing them, just as our district and synodical presidents, both active and retired, do. What would be in conflict would be if a Regent would publish an opinion or position that is critical of the Synod, the institution he represents, or his or her Board.
I would argue that it is beneficial to know what our elected (and appointed) board members think on various controversial issues rather than hiding in "executive session" or behind the vote of the majority. All Regents are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and resolve them to the satisfaction of the Board. If such a publishing endeavor is indeed a conflict of interest, it should be brought to the attention of the Board chairman for discussion.
This is the reality of our social media, self-publishing age. Back in another day, you had to run a printing press to do indie journalism. Now anyone with a computer and internet access has the ability to publish worldwide. As a friend of mine quipped, "Thanks to the internet, everyone is everyone's ecclesiastical supervisor." Is it a good thing? Time will tell.
If you read everything I’ve written in this comment stream, Dave, you’ll see that I am raising similar questions to what you are raising. Far from being a “cosmic okey-donkey” (whatever that is), I do think the question of office is a valid one. I voluntarily drew back from certain public activities when I realized that it created a conflict and distraction for the Board of Regents I serve.
As you well know, Dave, public office does restrict one’s individual liberties, and what we do and say in public will have significant repercussions far beyond the event itself by virtue of the office we hold.
Regarding policy and procedure, you have the same access to the synodical handbook as anyone else in the synod. There is no by-law restriction place on elected or appointed regents regarding their activities outside their service on the Board. You would also have access to the CSL Board of Regents handbook by request to the chairman, that would detail any conflict of interest policies. Our CTSFW Handbook places no such restrictions upon Board members, lay or clergy.
It is also generally understood that the views expressed by individual members of a Board are that of the individual and not “authorized” by the Board. This is basic board governance. The Board speaks only through its majority vote and in its official minutes and memoranda. I cannot imagine anyone taking Tim’s personal opinion as being the authorized position of the Board of Regents. If they think that, they need to learn a bit about board govenance.
Heaven forbid that a senior teacher of the church with 16,169 posts on ALPB since 2007 might be offended by a layman with a blog and a Christian business that makes less money than comfort dogs.
It's okay to opinionate in public.
Anyway. Secret meetings. Chairman of the Board semaphore signals. Sub plots. Oi, gewalt. Just write to the Chairman of the Board and demand that I be voted off the island. Just please be very specific with all the wrongdoings and grievous offenses contained in these pixels.
Your turn from friendly and encouraging to frothing because of the ludicrous homosexual affirmation scandal has been a treat to watch.
It is NOT ok to pray when you lower our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ to one option among many alongside the adherents and proponents not only of false doctrine but false gods, demons, who lead souls to hell. God will not be mocked. Repent.
Are you sure you're a Christian, Mr. Rev Sir? The way you speak with such a lack of humility makes me think you must have missed the day in seminary that they taught charity. Or perhaps you attended the online version.
Discussion regarding synodical decline and crisis is helpful. However, I feel it often neglects how our decline illustrates much of what is happening in the larger church community.
Peeling the onion on decline is relatively straightforward except for the unaddressed spiritual root cause. However, this response is about the insistence that the LCMS has a pastor shortage that can only be addressed through alt track programs. We have a nearly 1:1 ratio of active pastors to active congregations, the highest in recent history.
Perhaps, but my observation is that a large proportion of our “Active” pastors have age or health issues that preclude accepting long term contexts. This is one reason idk full time interims. My health, and my wife’s, makes long term commitments feel less appropriate. I also look at Circuit meetings and see an increasing number of active pastors with similar problems.
Thanks, Pastor. This is a serious issue that the Synod also needs to address as kindly as possible. We have a high proportion of men engaged in a “selective” version of the OHM because of age, health, and other considerations. When our men take their ordination vows, it’s to fulfill all the duties. I would strongly recommend that men who have aged out of being able to conduct full-time, unabridged ministry hang up their cleats.
I think my comment on larger context, and my reply to your specific observation illustrate aspects of a larger cultural narrative impacting the church.
Good summary in the spirit of “concord.” Defining the issues in terms of language and clearly articulating the various positions without resorting to ad hominem is the Formula’s pathway to concord. Misrepresentations and caricaturizations are the unfortunate hallmark of the ordo politicus and have no place in the ordo ecclesiasticus.
The author, whose stated interest is having a faithful Lutheran Church for generations to come, and who has an office in that church, has found out that the office is next to worthless for that interest. And so has tiptoed the boundary lines to pursue that interest. A man who had arguably higher office in the same church and oversaw dramatic declines, and who himself was not above tiptoing known boundary lines to push his interests and understanding, wants to throw bricks. Might I suggest that new wine can't go in old wineskins? That the offices don't work and people go outside of them because the current form of this church is hopelessly divided. And it has no real method to resolve that. Not only because there is no non-stage managed place to talk, but more because nobody is going to change practice. There is not the flexibility to do so.
I worked in Walmart management for two decades. The similarities between pastors/congregations data and store managers/stores data is downright weird to me (as well as other similarities).
The good store managers wanted the bigger stores that have better pay and bonuses. Troubled stores got new managers, that ate them up and spit them out. Then in the 2000s corporate realized they had to highly incentivize the urban troubled stores to bring the right manager over to it. It was only then troubles were fixed.
The problem is the stark difference I see between the corporate world and denominational church governance structures. Corporate change is much faster when it was needed to “save” a dying store. You did it, or you didn’t have a job.
I understand the need to patient with God’s growth in the church, but many times I feel like we are claiming “patience” but sometimes it’s combined with pastoral laziness. Yeah I said it. Get off your butts, men.
It does speak a bit to my concern, and I appreciate the share.
How I measure laziness is arbitrary and subjective, I suppose. Most of my adult life, I was blue collar working up to white collar before trading it in for the black collar. I hold no undergraduate degree prior to M.Div., and I was not a Christian until the age of 35. That being said, I understand my point of view is rather unique.
I view that my primary work ethic is centered on Christ, and should be focused HEAVILY PRIMARILY on the souls that the Lord has entrusted to my care. I then have protected family time. Any "extra" time beyond that - like typing this reply, should be minimal, as I have sermons and studies to plan and write, visits to make, etc.
The comparisons I make between private corporations and church governance structures I did not need to search out. They are simply very apparent to me.
I do not view the comparisons in financial terms (although some do exist), only in terms of management styles in operations and applications of change. I do not view our congregational polity as franchised in any way, and would agree that outside management involvement can be intrusive---be it Walmart or the congregation.
As for incentivizing, Tim Wood's recent interview with On the Line spoke about this, and it is an idea worth chewing on. Part of it answers the goal in the ULC article of forming "fewer, healthier, mission-shaped churches capable of reaching people who do not yet know Christ." The possibility that congregational mergers could be incentivized.
I appreciate the amount of effort you regularly put into research, graphics and general information to support your positions. In your article, you make the claim that the ratio of congregations to active pastors is close to 1:1. Have we considered metrics on these pastors such as age, health, parish vs. synod positions, etc. to better understand the ability/effectiveness of these pastors to serve congregations? My concern is that much like our Social Security fund, pension plans, etc. there is a Boomer bomb ready to detonate. Has this topic been explored?
Yes, the rise in the 1:1 ratio is impacted by a culturally unusual persistence of older men in the pulpit. Very few of the much older cohort are doing full-time pastoral ministry, and anecdotal evidence suggests it's focused on limited W&SM for congregations that cannot afford a full-time pastor.
Statistically, those pastors will start falling out more dramatically in the next 15 years. When they go, the congregations they have been propping up will go with them. The coming quarter-century will be marked by a dramatic reduction in the total number of pastors and congregations; maybe a halving of both, which would improve the per-pastor attendee ratio? The consequences will be unprecedented without a focused response to cushion the outcome.
I'll see if I can work up a reasonable forecast of what is likely to happen based on the known or estimated age weightings of the current roster.
Thanks, Kristine. Jarryd Allison has written several articles on AdC News about the need to raise standards for our pastors.
We are doing some additional data collection to eventually look into the metrics you mention.
The congregation with 30 is probably easy so solve with a combination of solutions that don’t require a full time pastor for just them. The inverse is the congregation of 3,000 where the sacraments are, often, not treated with the reverence required because it becomes a production line throughput problem.
It is truly extraordinary to witness a pastor and former district president break the Eighth with such impunity. Rev. Benke, you are disparaging the entire board and executive of CSL. This is unbecoming behavior, and you should repent of it.
Above, you accused me of lying and the BoR of sending me on "an assignment". Baseless. No evidence. But you throw it out there; "just asking questions about, you know." You've never bothered to call Dr. Egger or Pr. Mons. You launch into the worst construction with one conspiracy theory after the next, as is your persistent habit.
You hand-wave about perceived and imagined conflicts of interest as if the BoR is too dumb or conspiratorial to know whether I am in conflict, or that I am so rogue that I disrespect policies and the handbook. Go ahead, file a complaint.
What's fascinating to me, Mr. Benke, is how you contiually spew so much animosity and yet continue to label yourself a "Rev." Who in the world looks to you for guidance, sir? I feel sorry for them.
Dr. Benke, here’s a challenge. I have been writing about Synodical goings on since 2014, starting at Steadfast Lutherans. Over the decade+, I have made many recommendations. Can you name a single recommendation or proposal I have made that any Synod institution or Synod official has taken up? I’ll help out; the answer is ZERO. The response of Synodocrats to my work has nearly always been that I don’t understand how the sausage is made, AKA, leave the important things to the insiders and don’t meddle.
I'm reminded here of the admonition of the sainted Rev. Dr. Norman Nagel, with whom I spent a lot of time both in the classroom and in private conversation. Dr. Nagel would always ask, "What is your Amt?" To what have you been called and whom do you serve? I haven't always asked myself that question, and it has netted more trouble for me than the particular matter was worth. Perhaps the reason that none of your recommendations or proposals have been heard by the Synod is that no one was asking you. Just a thought from one troubler of Israel to another.
Yeah, that’s good. Two caveats: a) I have never expected or needed a response to any of my proposals and recommendations. I have made them because I continually think about these things and always prefer specific solutions over easy criticism. I serve God, and my calling is for my great, great grandchildren to have an orthodox Evangelical Lutheran Church to be baptized, catechized, and married in. b) The Amt question touches on the root of a cultural problem in the LCMS - it is assumed that if you are not wearing the sash of this office or the chain of that office, then you need permission to have a public opinion, hence Rev. Benke’s framing and phrasing. For whatever reason, my writing about LCMS issues has attracted a large following, especially among the laity: ~115,000 views last month and the unique readers reached ~88,000.
The issue of “Amt” is not necessarily limited to the clergy nor does it pertain solely to the office of the holy ministry. It also does not mean that the laity have no voice in ecclesial matters. They most certainly do, as your election to a Board of Regents indicates. We have laity serving on all boards of the synod, including the CTCR and BoD. In general, the laity are pretty much free to say and do whatever they wish, so long as they don’t run afoul of their pastor. Congregation autonomy protects them from synodical repercussions. The clergy are not so free, by virtue of their office. Holding synodical office, such as that of Regent, does restrict one’s liberty to speak as freely as one might otherwise wish, a lesson I’ve learned the hard way on at least one occasion.
A related issue of “Amt” has to do with self-publishing and self-broadcasting. This is a new variable in church life. Anyone can publish and broadcast with nothing more than a cell phone and an internet account. It used to be that all we had was Christian News to stir up the muck; now anyone can do it from his or her kitchen table. Is it good? Not sure. Do 88,000 people need to weigh in on pastoral formation or the handling of a situation in a given congregation? Does this contribute to good order and build up the Body of Christ for works of service? Or does it foment division and needless controversy? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think they need to be reflected upon.
I think Tim adequately and accurately addressed his role as a regent of CSL. Regents are not forbidden from holding positions and opinions on various issues and publishing them, just as our district and synodical presidents, both active and retired, do. What would be in conflict would be if a Regent would publish an opinion or position that is critical of the Synod, the institution he represents, or his or her Board.
I would argue that it is beneficial to know what our elected (and appointed) board members think on various controversial issues rather than hiding in "executive session" or behind the vote of the majority. All Regents are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and resolve them to the satisfaction of the Board. If such a publishing endeavor is indeed a conflict of interest, it should be brought to the attention of the Board chairman for discussion.
This is the reality of our social media, self-publishing age. Back in another day, you had to run a printing press to do indie journalism. Now anyone with a computer and internet access has the ability to publish worldwide. As a friend of mine quipped, "Thanks to the internet, everyone is everyone's ecclesiastical supervisor." Is it a good thing? Time will tell.
If you read everything I’ve written in this comment stream, Dave, you’ll see that I am raising similar questions to what you are raising. Far from being a “cosmic okey-donkey” (whatever that is), I do think the question of office is a valid one. I voluntarily drew back from certain public activities when I realized that it created a conflict and distraction for the Board of Regents I serve.
As you well know, Dave, public office does restrict one’s individual liberties, and what we do and say in public will have significant repercussions far beyond the event itself by virtue of the office we hold.
Regarding policy and procedure, you have the same access to the synodical handbook as anyone else in the synod. There is no by-law restriction place on elected or appointed regents regarding their activities outside their service on the Board. You would also have access to the CSL Board of Regents handbook by request to the chairman, that would detail any conflict of interest policies. Our CTSFW Handbook places no such restrictions upon Board members, lay or clergy.
It is also generally understood that the views expressed by individual members of a Board are that of the individual and not “authorized” by the Board. This is basic board governance. The Board speaks only through its majority vote and in its official minutes and memoranda. I cannot imagine anyone taking Tim’s personal opinion as being the authorized position of the Board of Regents. If they think that, they need to learn a bit about board govenance.
How do you travel so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole that even my surname needs to be pluralized now?
Heaven forbid that a senior teacher of the church with 16,169 posts on ALPB since 2007 might be offended by a layman with a blog and a Christian business that makes less money than comfort dogs.
It's okay to opinionate in public.
Anyway. Secret meetings. Chairman of the Board semaphore signals. Sub plots. Oi, gewalt. Just write to the Chairman of the Board and demand that I be voted off the island. Just please be very specific with all the wrongdoings and grievous offenses contained in these pixels.
Your turn from friendly and encouraging to frothing because of the ludicrous homosexual affirmation scandal has been a treat to watch.
I'll take an oath of Amt on the handbooks of all the institutions.
It is NOT ok to pray when you lower our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ to one option among many alongside the adherents and proponents not only of false doctrine but false gods, demons, who lead souls to hell. God will not be mocked. Repent.
Are you sure you're a Christian, Mr. Rev Sir? The way you speak with such a lack of humility makes me think you must have missed the day in seminary that they taught charity. Or perhaps you attended the online version.
My, my, this is the longest ad hominem argument I've seen in quite a while. Not one word of substance on the issue at hand.
Discussion regarding synodical decline and crisis is helpful. However, I feel it often neglects how our decline illustrates much of what is happening in the larger church community.
Peeling the onion on decline is relatively straightforward except for the unaddressed spiritual root cause. However, this response is about the insistence that the LCMS has a pastor shortage that can only be addressed through alt track programs. We have a nearly 1:1 ratio of active pastors to active congregations, the highest in recent history.
Perhaps, but my observation is that a large proportion of our “Active” pastors have age or health issues that preclude accepting long term contexts. This is one reason idk full time interims. My health, and my wife’s, makes long term commitments feel less appropriate. I also look at Circuit meetings and see an increasing number of active pastors with similar problems.
Thanks, Pastor. This is a serious issue that the Synod also needs to address as kindly as possible. We have a high proportion of men engaged in a “selective” version of the OHM because of age, health, and other considerations. When our men take their ordination vows, it’s to fulfill all the duties. I would strongly recommend that men who have aged out of being able to conduct full-time, unabridged ministry hang up their cleats.
I think my comment on larger context, and my reply to your specific observation illustrate aspects of a larger cultural narrative impacting the church.
Good summary in the spirit of “concord.” Defining the issues in terms of language and clearly articulating the various positions without resorting to ad hominem is the Formula’s pathway to concord. Misrepresentations and caricaturizations are the unfortunate hallmark of the ordo politicus and have no place in the ordo ecclesiasticus.
Another solid article by A.C. and another gamma wall of text by RDDH Benke. We could set a clock by it.
The author, whose stated interest is having a faithful Lutheran Church for generations to come, and who has an office in that church, has found out that the office is next to worthless for that interest. And so has tiptoed the boundary lines to pursue that interest. A man who had arguably higher office in the same church and oversaw dramatic declines, and who himself was not above tiptoing known boundary lines to push his interests and understanding, wants to throw bricks. Might I suggest that new wine can't go in old wineskins? That the offices don't work and people go outside of them because the current form of this church is hopelessly divided. And it has no real method to resolve that. Not only because there is no non-stage managed place to talk, but more because nobody is going to change practice. There is not the flexibility to do so.
I worked in Walmart management for two decades. The similarities between pastors/congregations data and store managers/stores data is downright weird to me (as well as other similarities).
The good store managers wanted the bigger stores that have better pay and bonuses. Troubled stores got new managers, that ate them up and spit them out. Then in the 2000s corporate realized they had to highly incentivize the urban troubled stores to bring the right manager over to it. It was only then troubles were fixed.
The problem is the stark difference I see between the corporate world and denominational church governance structures. Corporate change is much faster when it was needed to “save” a dying store. You did it, or you didn’t have a job.
I understand the need to patient with God’s growth in the church, but many times I feel like we are claiming “patience” but sometimes it’s combined with pastoral laziness. Yeah I said it. Get off your butts, men.
I guess I should write an article of my own.
Good article, AC.
It does speak a bit to my concern, and I appreciate the share.
How I measure laziness is arbitrary and subjective, I suppose. Most of my adult life, I was blue collar working up to white collar before trading it in for the black collar. I hold no undergraduate degree prior to M.Div., and I was not a Christian until the age of 35. That being said, I understand my point of view is rather unique.
I view that my primary work ethic is centered on Christ, and should be focused HEAVILY PRIMARILY on the souls that the Lord has entrusted to my care. I then have protected family time. Any "extra" time beyond that - like typing this reply, should be minimal, as I have sermons and studies to plan and write, visits to make, etc.
The comparisons I make between private corporations and church governance structures I did not need to search out. They are simply very apparent to me.
I do not view the comparisons in financial terms (although some do exist), only in terms of management styles in operations and applications of change. I do not view our congregational polity as franchised in any way, and would agree that outside management involvement can be intrusive---be it Walmart or the congregation.
As for incentivizing, Tim Wood's recent interview with On the Line spoke about this, and it is an idea worth chewing on. Part of it answers the goal in the ULC article of forming "fewer, healthier, mission-shaped churches capable of reaching people who do not yet know Christ." The possibility that congregational mergers could be incentivized.
https://youtu.be/8X3g3ggMBOI?si=8Rf2y2zVBHrvJID2
I appreciate the amount of effort you regularly put into research, graphics and general information to support your positions. In your article, you make the claim that the ratio of congregations to active pastors is close to 1:1. Have we considered metrics on these pastors such as age, health, parish vs. synod positions, etc. to better understand the ability/effectiveness of these pastors to serve congregations? My concern is that much like our Social Security fund, pension plans, etc. there is a Boomer bomb ready to detonate. Has this topic been explored?
Pax Domin!
Thanks, Brad, much appreciated.
Yes, the rise in the 1:1 ratio is impacted by a culturally unusual persistence of older men in the pulpit. Very few of the much older cohort are doing full-time pastoral ministry, and anecdotal evidence suggests it's focused on limited W&SM for congregations that cannot afford a full-time pastor.
Statistically, those pastors will start falling out more dramatically in the next 15 years. When they go, the congregations they have been propping up will go with them. The coming quarter-century will be marked by a dramatic reduction in the total number of pastors and congregations; maybe a halving of both, which would improve the per-pastor attendee ratio? The consequences will be unprecedented without a focused response to cushion the outcome.
I'll see if I can work up a reasonable forecast of what is likely to happen based on the known or estimated age weightings of the current roster.