Cross-Focused Leadership for Missouri

Lutheran theology teaches God’s merciful action in our world through two distinct kingdoms. In the right-hand kingdom, God operates via the Gospel. In the left-hand kingdom, through the Law. The right-hand kingdom is about churchly things, the left-hand kingdom has to do with more secular things.

Much has been said about Rev. Matt Harrison’s pastoral heart, his solid grounding in Lutheran theology, his understanding of our history and his vision for an LCMS future that finds healing in unity around God’s Word. As we Lutherans might say, “That’s right-hand kingdom stuff”. And perhaps these qualities are most important in a president.

But “on the other hand”, that is, in the “left-hand kingdom”, Rev. Harrison brings great gifts and skills to the table. His success as an administrator will also be an asset to the LCMS if, God willing, Rev. Harrison is elected to serve as President. During his time in LCMS-World Relief and Human Care, as well as his previous work with urban housing in Ft. Wayne, Rev. Harrison has shown the ability to “get the job done”. But how?

ALL HANDS ON DECK

Rev. Harrison is a visionary leader who inspires those around him to do great things. He’s not a micro-manager, but surrounds himself with competent people and gives them room and space to use their talents and abilities to the fullest. It takes more than putting on the appearance of being a charming individual, to do great things. One must also be able to win the hearts and passion of those he serves, so that all can serve together.

HELP FROM HELPING HANDS

Rev. Harrison is a leader who honestly recognizes his weaknesses as a leader. This honest recognition of his gifts and weaknesses, has allowed him to assemble an excellent staff that enhances his strengths while accomplishing great work. Harrison has no problem surrounding himself with people who are more gifted than he is. His staff is comprised of competent, compassionate professionals who know how to get the job done. (This is also another reason we hope Resolution 8-08 doesn’t pass and dissolve WR-HC and lose this great staff!)

A STEADY HAND

Look at what has been accomplished over the last decade in WR-HC, administering over $100 million. This department has been transformed from a “pass-through organization” that primarily gave funds to other organizations (LWR, LDR, LSA, LIRS) to “do stuff”, to developing capacity to help other Lutherans and their neighbors throughout the world to “do stuff”.

Furthermore, while LCMS Inc. has been spending beyond its means, LCMS WR-HC has been careful not to “spend more than it has” under Rev. Harrison’s steady leadership. Remember, the Office of LCMS President is responsible for administering at most $2 million per year. But if Resolution 8-08 passes, we estimate the President’s Office will oversee $50 million plus! We need Rev. Harrison’s experience and leadership in stewarding these important funds for God’s work!

GETTING HIS HANDS DIRTY

Maybe you’ve seen Rev. Harrison in that khaki field vest he likes to wear – out bringing the LCMS arm of mercy to people in need around the world. Rev. Harrison was one of the first LCMS representatives in Haiti following the earthquake. He was on the ground following Katrina. A good leader isn’t above stooping down to serve, as we have seen Rev. Harrison do time and again.

It’s time to work, and Rev. Harrison has the right-hand and also the left-hand gifts we need to lead the LCMS to a bright future.

There is a children’s nursery rhyme about a famous egg who had a great fall from his perch on the wall. The nursery rhyme concludes, “All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty together again.” In a similar way, our Missouri Synod has found itself fractured and broken. The report from the Task Force on Synod Harmony (page 74 in the workbook) reports that there is diversity (disunity?) in “admission to Holy Communion, worship substance and style, the Office of the Public Ministry and the role of laity, and the service of women in the church.” The question is, can the King and his horses and his men put the synod back together again? It all depends on which King you are talking about.

The June issue of the Lutheran Witness has Q&A’s with the candidates for “king” in our synod. The two obvious choices are Matt Harrison and Jerry Keischnick. Each one has a plan for the coming triennium to reassemble the synod. So who has the glue that will stick?

Neither one.

In 1923, then President Friedrich Pfotenhauer wrote,  “If a church body wishes to be preserved from party spirit or be cured of this malady when it has broken out, the only remedy is diligent study of God’s Word. The Word of God has the property of unifying and preserving unity.” In other words, the unity for our fractured synod, the glue that will put us back together again won’t come from Matt Harrison. It won’t come from Jerry Keischnick. It won’t even come from a Synodical Task Force, (blue ribbon or otherwise). It will only come from Jesus the Lord of the Church who deals with His Church by His Spirit in His Word. Our Synod needs to dive headlong into the Word of God if we seek to lose the party spirit and regain the unity we have lost.

Matt Harrison knows this full well. As the Director of World Relief and Human Care, Matt has had to walk the line of doctrine and practice rather gingerly. WRHC works with partner organizations, some of whom share our Confessional Lutheran Convictions; others who do not. Maintaining doctrinal integrity in inter-church relations is a challenge. Those who work with him on the Board for Human Care have witnessed his pastoral heart, that patiently explains the differences and often endures the ensuing disrespect. One of the Board members, John Edson, has commended Matt for implementing his vision and maintaining his focus on the Gospel. It is that focus on the Gospel that is most needed now in our Synod. It is this experience that uniquely prepares him to lead the way through the diversity and disparity that currently plagues our synod.

We need to be brought back together. Harrison has a plan to do it. It’s called the Koinonia Project. Koinonia is a word that comes to us from the Greek language. It means “unity”. The New Testament uses this word to describe those things that draw us together as the Body of Christ. Acts 2:42 puts koinonia along side the Apostles’ teaching and worship and the Lord’s Supper; Christ’s gifts that create koinonia. The Koinonia Project is designed to point us to those things, to the teachings of the Apostles, to our confession of faith so that our koinonia might be restored. The Koinonia Project is a collaborative plan from Matt Harrison and Herb Mueller (the president of the Southern Illinois District and fellow presidential nominee). Mueller writes, “We need a deeper understanding of the Scriptures and confessions as they apply to the issues that trouble our unity and form the cause of so much political wrangling among us.” The Koinonia Project sets out to identify the points of controversy, posit clear statements of what we affirm coupled with clear statements of what we reject and finally creates an agreement of what we will do together. The process is outlined in Harrison’s It’s Time essay.

Ultimately the Synod is divided. We have fallen from our lofty perch of unified belief and practice. We have become a synod divided along political lines where we agree with our allies and talk behind the backs of our opponents. This is not healthy for our Synod. This is not healthy for the Body of Christ. Our Synod needs a president with a pastoral heart who will lead us into the Word of God so that we can repent of our disunity, receive forgiveness from Christ and from each other, and work side by side in a synod restored. Can Matt Harrison put the Synod back together again? No. But he knows Who can!

Matthew C. Harrison was a pastor before he became head of World Relief and Human Care.

To be certain, he personally keeps a balanced approach to all of his vocations: baptized Christian first, husband and father second, and ordained pastor after those vocations, but his service to the Lord and the Lord’s Church shows the same pastoral care priorities every time he has been called to serve, whether in the parish or at the International Center in St. Louis.

Why do we need a pastor as President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod? Our first president, C. F. W. Walther said it best: “The only power of Synod comes from the Word of God.” This truth can best be heard in an important and recently-reprinted essay.

Which essay? In preparation for the regional gatherings on the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance, a document titled “The Final Report of the BRTFSSG” was mailed to every delegate. So was the essay, “Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod.” In 2007, the theses of Dr. Walther’s essay were included in the “Congregation—Synod—Church” study document. We thank President Kieschnick, the Task Force, and Concordia Publishing House for reprinting the entire 1879 essay from the First Iowa District Convention in preparation for the important votes in Houston in July 2010.

Not only does the essay reinforce the truth that “The only power of Synod comes from the Word of God.” It also teaches all who seek elected office in the LCMS that the only power of an LCMS President “comes from the Word of God.”  The Synod has no coercive power, nor does its leaders.

Originally, Dr. Walther was able to annually visit all of the congregations of the LCMS. Over time four, and eventually more, Districts were created by Synod so that District Presidents could assist in that visitation. Currently, Circuit Counselors (referred to as Circuit Visitors in our Wyoming District) assist the DP and SP in making sure each congregation and pastor are visited at least once every three years. Wouldn’t this be a good time to return to such a pastoral approach on all levels?

Congregations would benefit from patient, tactful pastors who allow the Gospel to suffer rejection while continuing to exhort with the Gospel. Pastors can avoid the mistake of legislating a change (and the disaster that so often follows) by properly teaching first and then introducing change once the Word has done its work.

Districts would benefit from caring District Presidents who personally and through Circuit representatives made sure that congregations are properly caring for their pastors and that pastors are properly caring for their congregations. And why not return to our former terminology about such visits, by having Circuit Visitors once again?

Synod as a whole would benefit from a pastor who has been uniquely prepared for the Office of President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.  Rev. Harrison served a rural congregation and an urban congregation with a Lutheran day school. He oversaw seminarians in their field education. He spent a year as a missionary to Cree Indians in Canada.  He grounds his scholarly pursuits in pastoral care, particularly the writings of Hermann Sasse and Johann Gerhard.  His translations take centuries-old Latin and German writings and give readers clear, 21st-Century English.  As others have noted, Rev. Harrison is a pastor first!

Matthew Harrison is a popular speaker.  His sermon the day after Call Day at one of our seminary chapels was truly inspiring, giving hope-filed pastoral care to men who have yet to receive calls.

Rev. Harrison has a pastoral heart, a pastoral mind, and a pastoral approach to the many challenges found in our culture and in the LCMS. It’s Time for Pastor Matthew C. Harrison as President of the LCMS.

What a relief!  After one hundred pages of administrative reports and details in the LCMS 2010 Convention Workbook, comes this word from Pastor Matthew Harrison:

“We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.  Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4).  It is impossible to adequately express the profound honor, thankfulness, and joy that we at LCMS World Relief and Human Care have and experience as a result of the unfathomable generosity of you, the dear members and congregations of the LCMS.” (p. 102)

These gracious words of Pastor Harrison precede his official report to the synod.  They let us know that, even though he has a lot to report about his department, they could not have done it without our prayers and financial support.  And this thankfulness is not tacked on the end, as an afterthought, but permeates Harrison’s whole report.  The entire report is in the mode of gratitude to the synod, to donors, and to our Lord!

Most impressive in the triennial work of this agency has been their relief “on the ground” for the 2006 tsunami in Asia, the hurricane “Katrina” that devastated New Orleans and the north Gulf Coast, and the gut-wrenching earthquake in Haiti.  In all these cases, synodical congregations and members came through with record-breaking donations, and LCMS World Relief and Human Care was there at the scene, working with partner churches, to give aid and help where it was most needed.

The report of LCMS World Relief and Human Care stretches across ten pages of double column fine print—there is a lot to report here!  The work under Pastor Harrison is divided into these areas:  Health Ministries, Life Ministries, Social Ministry Organizations, Grant Administration, Deaconess Ministry, District and Congregational activities, International activities, Disaster Response, Specialized Pastoral Ministry, Task Force on Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, National Housing Support, Elderly Housing Development, and Resources.  Departments that serve these programmatic activities include Communications, Operations, and Fund Development.  You can read the report for yourself here.

Anyone reading this report has to be impressed with Pastor Harrison’s ability to gather together a team of dedicated persons and to lead them through stressful times for the good of the church and for those they serve.  This is an impressive record of service by his “team members,” of financial support by caring Lutherans, and of Harrison’s ability to lead a very complex organization with a $30 million gift income for the triennium.

We hope that the synod will heed the plea of the Board for Human Care and not merge and dilute this work by the passage of Blue Ribbon Task Force Recommendation #18.  We also hope that the synod will seriously consider how Rev. Harrison’s work at LCMS World Relief and Human Care has helped prepare him for the role of synodical president.

If you ask most young pastors today their biggest complaint, it would be that the financial hurdle to enter ministry is too high.  As a result, a majority of them are saddled with debt that, as far as they can tell, may never be repaid.  When you ask seminary administrators about this problem, they point to the synod itself, which offers little or nothing in the form of operating income to support the seminaries operations.  This problem has been simmering for over a decade. This leads many thoughtful people to ask, “What about the synod’s priorities?  Are we unable to fulfill them?”  Good question!

Is the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod a poor church?  Hardly!  Lutheran Church Extension Fund assets are about $1.8 billion (Sept. 09).  Concordia University endowments are about $193 million (Oct. 09).  The synod owns thirty-five district offices, ten university campuses, two seminary campuses, and two office campuses, almost all in US suburban metropolitan areas.  Congregational offering plate revenue is about $1.4 billion per year, $51 million of which is sent to the districts, and $19 million of which is sent to synod offices (Sept. 09).  The LCMS Board of Directors annual budget is about $81 million (Sept. 09).

The synod does not have a money problem, if you simply look at assets and revenue.  The problem is allocations and priorities.  These allocations and priorities are set, for the most part, by resolutions adopted by the synod in convention.  If the synod in convention does not aggressively and regularly adopt resolutions for the financial support of seminaries that are mandatory, specific, and generous, the other agencies of the synod will use their influence to direct the revenue stream and the asset bank in their own direction. 

The result of this redirection of revenue and assets is that, in recent decades, the seminaries cannot cover their own costs and then have to pass on their expenses to their students.  In addition to this heavy financial burden on seminary students, they are now also faced with the discouraging prospect of no call and no job upon graduation.  The last graduating class had 80 seminarians who could not be placed in the Spring placement.  But all Specific Ministry Program (SMP) students are placed automatically, since they study where they live and serve. 

Today’s potential seminary students look at their costs, look at the uncertainty of placement, look at the SMP option, and then vote with their feet.  Today the SMP program enrollment is nearing the enrollment of residential students at the Fort Wayne seminary.  At some point, when SMP gets a sufficiently large enrollment, people might realize that the SMP is a whole lot less of a financial burden for students, it doesn’t really need seminary professors or seminary campuses, and then both seminary professors and their campuses could become extinct.

What would the synod lose if it closed its seminaries and did all pastoral training by SMP?  Most significantly, the synod would lose the social cohesion among its pastoral rank and file that comes from the shared seminary experience.  This cohesion, or concordia, is a fragile thing and when lost leads to sectarianism and schism.  Secondarily, the synod would lose the theological cohesion that comes from seminarians submitting to the teaching of a “faculty,” i.e., a team of professionals dedicated to a doctrinal standard and to common goals for the common good of the church. 

In addition to these factors, which are vital to the health of the synod, the students would lose the communal benefits of “outside of the classroom” discussions with professors, the support group of fellow students, the vast libraries, the expertise of professors with Ph.D.s in various theological disciplines, a daily spiritual discipline in genuine Lutheran worship, and the development of friendships for themselves and their wives that last a lifetime.

Persons who have not studied at our seminaries don’t know what a treasure our synod has there.  At Saint Louis and Fort Wayne are some of the world’s foremost Lutheran exegetes, theologians, church historians, missiologists, homileticians, liturgiologists, church musicians, pastoral counselors, and experts in pastoral practice of every sort.  Christian theologians around the world recognize the names of:  Nagel, Scaer, Feurhahn, Weinrich, Kolb, Wenthe, Arand, Just, Voelz, Rast, Raabe, Gieschen, Gibbs, Resch, Rosin—just to name a few in no particular order.

If the synod closed its seminaries, it would also miss out on the greatest opportunity of the Third Millenia:  globalization.  The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has four things to offer the new Lutheran churches around the globe:  financial support, charitable support and relief, seminary education, and post M.Div. graduate theological education.  For world Lutheran churches that are still small, or struggling financially, the best way that we can help is not to send “missionaries” (though those are still needed in some places), but to educate their future pastors and leaders at our Fort Wayne and Saint Louis seminaries.  If we want to talk about “missions,” this is it!  This is already going on, and producing amazing results!  (see http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-time-to-rock-lutheran-world.html)

This is another reason that we like Matt Harrison.  He has traveled around the world numerous times, and understands the challenges and opportunities faced by our partner churches. He understands the impact that well-trained pastors have on the world and how essential they are for missions.  At a time when our synod has cut back support for its residential seminaries, he says it’s time to reinvest in them, that with God’s help we might “rock the world.” Lutheran seminaries have been transforming men and congregations for five hundred years.  Now is no time to hinder that amazing work of the Holy Spirit!

I live in a town in which the most influential company is SC Johnson, whose tagline is, “A family company”. While I hear lots of nice things about this company, the fact is, it’s still a corporation and not really a family.

Lately, I keep running across this little aphorism, “The Church is a family, not a business!” And it rings true.

So it got me to thinking about how a family is DIFFERENT from a business:

• A family is based on relationships of love. A business is based on numbers and profits.
• A family is about who you are. A business is about what you do.
• The family is instituted by God. A business is founded by man.
• The family is structured to reflect deep truths about our relationship with God – we are His children, we are part of Christ’s bride. A business is structured for maximum efficiency toward the goal of producing and profiting.
• A family thrives when it is spiritually strong. A business doesn’t care about things spiritual.
• Membership in a family is permanent. Employment at a business isn’t so sure.
• Families value individuals as equal members. Businesses pay employees based on value to the company.

Like families, churches have squabbles and tensions, and sometimes even that crazy uncle. We sin against each other, but hopefully reconcile under the cross. Dysfunctional churches are like dysfunctional families, and growing up in one can be just as damaging. But as a haven for the hurting and a place to learn what love is all about – the church is very much a family. We are God’s children in Jesus Christ. We are Christ’s bride, the church. We are loved by Him and we love each other for Jesus’ sake. We are HIS family, and He is the head of the household.

And yet many want to run the church as if we were a corporation. While the church can certainly learn some lessons from the business world, “going corporate” means placing the highest value on efficiency. As important as stewardship is, we must always remember that the abiding things are faith, hope, and love.  So we believe we need to get back to being a church family. Let’s put off everything that hinders us from doing so. Perhaps we need to set aside our American obsession with “success”. Perhaps we need to unplug from the confusion of our culture and take time to see things through the clarity of God’s Word. Perhaps we need to renew our appreciation for the churchly ways of the Lutheran confessions, and look more objectively at the imported business models and worldly language of modern Evangelicalism. Perhaps we just need to repent that we have not feared, loved, nor trusted in God above all things.

The church is a family, not a business; it’s time to trust in churchly things to solve the church’s problems.

What do congregations, pastors, and other church-workers have to do to remain members in good standing in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?  Article VI of the LCMS constitution states that they must accept without reservation the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, they must renounce unionism and syncretism of every description, congregations must call in a “regular” manner, church-workers must have a “blameless life,” they must exclusively use doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms, and their congregation’s constitutions must not contain anything contrary to Scripture or the Confessions.

What about the resolutions that are passed by national conventions every three years?  Must congregations, pastors, and other church-workers comply with all of those resolutions in order to remain members in good standing?  There has been a lot of confusion and debate about this topic in the Missouri Synod, going back as far as the San Francisco convention in 1959.  Making the debate even more confusing is the fact that the synod has 160 years of doctrinal resolutions (see Concordia Historical Institute, “The Doctrinal Resolutions of the National Conventions of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 1847-2004″ [2006], at:  http://chi.lcms.org/doctresorder.htm).  Are all these resolutions binding on congregations and church-workers, or only some of them, and if so in what way?

The Synodical President’s office recently mailed to the congregations of the synod a resource titled “This We Believe:  Selected Topics of Faith and Practice in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.”  This is an excellent resource that should be kept in every LCMS pastor’s study and every congregational library.  We also highly recommend that convention delegates obtain their own copy here:  http://www.cph.org/p-17428-this-we-believe.aspx

Delegates will want to have copies of “This We Believe” in order to understand what recent conventions have expressed on these doctrinal topics.  As the book itself notes, “only those topics that have most frequently been discussed and addressed in recent years by the Synod have been included” (p. v).  There is no resolution cited from before 1965.  So you could say that the book is a collection of “Current Issues” facing the synod, both as it confronts questions internal to the church and issues impinging from the society in which we live.

Just because the synod passed a resolution on a current issue, does not mean that said resolution is the “final word” on the subject.  President Kieschnick correctly observes in his preface “The LCMS clearly states that Scripture alone is the final authority for faith and practice” (our emphasis; p. vii).  That is why there is more than one resolution for many of the current issues.  In many cases, subsequent resolutions of the synod revise or correct previous ones.  Therefore the publication of “This We Believe” does not close debate on those topics; rather, it informs the reader of where the discussion currently stands.

Three things need to be said as words of caution about the use of the book “This We Believe.” 

First, convention resolutions are no replacement for our Lutheran confessions.  One might get the impression that since “Scripture alone” is the authoritative standard, therefore the confessions are not a standard at all.  This would ignore what we confess in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, section 10, that our Lutheran confessions are “a single, universally accepted, certain, and common form of doctrine which all our Evangelical churches subscribe and from which and according to which, because it is drawn from the Word of God, all other writings are to be approved and accepted, judged and regulated.”  This certainly means that the Lutheran Confessions are an authoritative standard, as is affirmed by both the Brief Statement (“This We Believe,” pp. 60-73) and the “Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (ibid., pp. 74-85).

Second, convention doctrinal resolutions are a way of testing what the majority of congregations and church-workers believe on a given topic.  The proper use of such resolutions is thus to say “this is what the majority of people in our church presently believe about this issue.”  It is also proper for synodical officials and professors to quote these resolutions, when it is asked “What does the LCMS say?”  And these resolutions are binding, in this way, on such officers and professors.  But this is not infallible “divine revelation.”  It may also be in error, as Luther often talked about the problems with the councils of the church (see for example his “On the Councils and the Church”, 1539).

Finally, and very significantly, convention resolutions are not binding, as if they are some sort of authoritative law, upon the congregations of the synod.  This is a basic principle of synodical structure and governance and is defined by Constitution Article VII.  According to that article, congregations must decide for themselves whether convention resolutions, including doctrinal ones, are in accord with the Word of God or applicable to their situations.  Congregations are only bound to the Scriptures, Confessions, and Article VI of the Constitution as stated above.  Our synod has always avoided forcing its congregations to do anything, particularly when convention resolutions are often passed with little serious discussion or debate.

And so we thank the President’s office for making this available to the church and encourage all delegates to read this material.  It is timely and helpful.  We are happy as supporters of Matt Harrison to give credit where credit is due and so want to commend President Kieschnick for doing a good job on this project.

Ironically, this resource underscores one of the reasons we support the election of Matt Harrison to succeed President Kieschnick in office this year.  Rev. Harrison understands and supports the historical LCMS position that convention resolutions are legally binding on officers and professors of the synod, but not on congregations or other church-workers of synod.  President Kieschnick and Recommendation #1 from the “Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance” want to make such resolutions legally binding on congregations with proposed Constitution Article VII.B.2 (Final Report, Appendix 1, page 6).  VII.B.2 would destroy, quash, and eliminate one of the most important features of Missouri Synod’s structure and governance, i.e, the freedom of its congregations and church-workers from synodical interference.  If you appreciate that freedom, call your synodical delegate today and tell him “Vote NO on Blue Ribbon Task Force Recommendation #1.”

In November 2009, synodical leaders met at the Fort Wayne seminary to discuss the future of theological education in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.  Although some participants had some non-traditional ideas, the vast majority affirmed the central role that our two seminaries play in synodical life, particularly in the preparation of parish pastors.  A statement affirming that role was published in the January 2010 issue of the Reporter (page 4).  Another statement from the Board of Directors regarding “seminary efficiencies” was also recently published (see Reporter [Feb. 2010], Board Briefs, page 2).

Whether we like to admit it, or not, seminary training has changed in the Missouri Synod, because the nature of our congregations and their expectations of pastoral ministry has changed.   Although the synod and its leaders have always desired the highest possible standards for entrance into the ministry, the financial cost has often exceeded the synod’s ability to pay for the best possible training for all of its pastors (see Martin Noland, “A Tale of Two Seminaries,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 81 #2 [Summer 2008]: 120-126).

In recent years, a new idea of ministerial training has become prominent in some circles in our synod.  Instead of holding forth the highest possible standards for the pastoral ministry, including professional, academic, linguistic, personality, religious, and ethical standards, this idea holds that some of those standards are not necessary, or even desirable, at least for some pastors.  This idea sees ministerial training mainly as a form of apprenticeship under an existing parish pastor.  To put it in Lutheran terms, it is as if several years of vicarage suffices to become a pastor without any significant residential seminary training.  This apprenticeship approach has had several names and is presently labeled “Specific Ministry Pastor” (or SMP for short).

Is there anything wrong with the apprenticeship approach to ministerial training?  Jesus himself employed this method in training his apostles, as apparently also did Saint Paul and others in the New Testament period.  Where the church is persecuted, or is so new that it has only enough financial assets for supporting a couple of dozen pastors and associated church buildings, it is the only practical method.  But where a church is not persecuted and has some assets, financial investment in a residential seminary is the smartest move it can make for its own survival and growth. 

Is the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod a poor church?  Hardly!  Lutheran Church Extension Fund assets are about $1.8 billion (Sept. 09).  Concordia University endowments are about $193 million (Oct. 09).  The synod owns thirty-five district offices, ten university campuses, two seminary campuses, and two office campuses, almost all in US suburban metropolitan areas.  Congregational offering plate revenue is about $1.4 billion per year, $51 million of which is sent to the districts, and $19 million of which is sent to synod offices (Sept. 09).  The LCMS Board of Directors annual budget is about $81 million (Sept. 09).

The synod does not have a money problem, if you simply look at assets and revenue.  The problem is allocations and priorities.  These allocations and priorities are set, for the most part, by resolutions adopted by the synod in convention.  If the synod in convention does not aggressively and regularly adopt resolutions for the financial support of seminaries that are mandatory, specific, and generous, the other agencies of the synod will use their influence to direct the revenue stream and the asset bank in their own direction. 

The result of this redirection of revenue and assets is that the seminaries cannot cover their own costs and then have to pass on their expenses to their students.  In addition to this heavy burden on seminary students, they are faced with the real prospect of no call and no job upon graduation.  The last graduating class had 80 seminarians who could not be placed in the Spring placement.  But all SMP students are placed automatically, since they study where they serve. 

Today’s potential seminary students look at their costs, look at the uncertainty of placement, look at the apprenticeship option, and then vote with their feet into SMP.  Today the numbers in the SMP program enrollment is nearing the enrollment of residential students at the Fort Wayne seminary.  At some point, when SMP gets a sufficiently large enrollment, people might begin to realize that the SMP program doesn’t really need seminary professors or seminary campuses, that both professors and campuses are costly, and then both could become extinct.

What would the synod lose if it closed its seminaries and did all pastoral training by local apprenticeships?  Most significantly, the synod would lose the social cohesion among its pastoral rank and file that comes from the shared seminary experience.  This cohesion, or concordia, is a fragile thing and when lost leads to sectarianism and schism.  Secondarily, the synod would lose the theological cohesion that comes from seminarians submitting to the teaching of a “faculty,” i.e., a team of professionals dedicated to a doctrinal standard and to common goals for the common good of the church.  In addition, the students would lose the communal benefits of “outside of the classroom” discussions with professors, the support group of fellow students, the vast libraries, the expertise of professors with Ph.D.s in various theological disciplines, a daily spiritual discipline in real Lutheran worship, and the development of friendships for themselves and their wives that last a lifetime.

If the synod closed its seminaries, it would also miss out on the greatest opportunity of the Third Millenia:  globalization.  The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has four things to offer the new Lutheran churches around the globe:  financial support, charitable aid and relief, seminary education, and post M.Div. graduate theological education.  For world Lutheran churches that are small, or struggling financially, the best way that we can help is not to send “missionaries” (though those are still needed in some places), but to educate their future pastors and leaders at our Fort Wayne and Saint Louis seminaries.  This is already going on, and producing amazing results!  (see http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-time-to-rock-lutheran-world.html)

This is another reason that we like Matt Harrison.  He understands the impact that well-trained pastors have on the world and how essential they are for missions.  At a time when our synod is threatening to cut back support for its residential seminaries, he says it’s time to reinvest in them, that with God’s help we might “Rock the World (click here).” Lutheran seminaries have been transforming men and congregations for five hundred years.  Now is no time to hinder that amazing work of the Holy Spirit!

So far I have had opportunity to hear presentations from the BRTFSSG on two separate occasions; first at the Ohio District Convention in June and then at the Regional Gathering in Dearborn this past December.  I have appreciated the willingness with which the Task Force has approached their task. They have served and done
their duty gladly.  I commend them for this.

As I have attended these meetings, one thing that I have found puzzling is the defensiveness exhibited by many of those attending the meetings.  Not that the task force itself has been defensive, but many of those attending the meeting were defensive on their behalf.  I don’t understand why.

From my understanding, the intent of the Regional Gatherings has been to offer the delegates a presentation of the proposals made by the BRTFSSG.  This should provide the chance for open discussion, which includes critique of the proposals.  I would think that this would be helpful; that this hesitancy and concern would be understood as being for the overall benefit of the synod.  After all, the proposals are sweeping. The restructuring is extensive.  The results are far reaching. Wisdom requires that we examine these proposals with a keen eye to the details.  We will, after all, be living with these changes for a long time.  Therefore, why the defensiveness?  Why are the questions perceived as confrontation and the critiques seen as attacks? Legitimate questions should be posed.  Issues should be raised.  Far reaching wisdom should be brought forward.  One eye needs to be fixed on the past even as we look to the future.  We should be able to discuss the proposals and even bring out concerns and criticisms of the proposals without suspicion that such questions are suggestions of ill intent

A new article at the LCMS web-site by Dr. Mark Blanke, titled “An Educated Response to Membership Loss” gives the real reason for congregational growth and decline.  Blanke is Professor of Education at Concordia University, Seward.  The article can be found here:  http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=16639

Blanke analyzed LCMS congregations and finds that we really have a lot to offer, yet the LCMS numerically continues to decline in membership.  What gives?  In 1990, the Search Institute found that:

effective Christian education “is the most powerful single influence congregations have on maturity of faith.”  The research also pointed to the correlation between effective Christian education and the degree of denominational and congregational loyalty in a congregation – leading researchers to interpret that Christian education has the potential to renew congregational life and reverse downward membership trends.

 Blanke observes that the LCMS has declined in membership 15% over the last thirty years, but in the same period attendance at Sunday religion classes (adult, youth, and children) has declined by 30%.  30% is a very significant statistic, which should cause our synodical leaders to sit up and take notice.  Blanke also observes that, typically, LCMS pastors have only one course on religious education at the seminary. 

We observe that religious education is rarely talked about at the seminaries outside of that one class.  Only a very few pastors come out of an education background today.  A few pastors and laymen have shown continued interest in effective confirmation instruction for adults and children, as found for example in the work of the Concordia Catechetical Academy (see website at:  http://www.peacesussex.org/CCA/).  A few others have shown interest in an educationally focused youth ministry, as found for example in the work of Higher Things (see website at: http://www.higherthings.org). 

There are many, many dedicated teachers and Directors of Christian Education trained at our Concordias who keep reminding their pastors and synodical leaders “education is the key.”  The journals LEA Journal, Issues in Christian Education, and the LEA organization (see website at:  www.lea.org) are examples of their valiant efforts.  But present synodical leaders seem to be more interested in the glamorous role of “leadership” than the homely work of “education,” so these valiant efforts are mostly ignored.

What has happened to our synod?  In the past, most of the LCMS colleges were devoted to training Lutheran youth for a career in church work.  The general pattern was that a student began his studies in liberal arts and education.  If the student did well in the biblical languages, and showed promise in formal public speaking, he was steered toward the pastoral ministry.  If he did poorly in the biblical languages and public formal speaking, he was steered toward the teaching ministry.  The point here is that the pastors who went through this “synodical system” had a lot more training in pedagogy than at present and they saw themselves as religious educators.  This was totally in keeping with Luther’s emphasis on the Word of God.  In contrast, many of today’s seminarians aspire to be Chief Executive Officers and consider education and catechesis to be someone else’s job.

What can be done about this significant problem?  Blanke offers some initial questions for pastors and church leaders to ask themselves:

What could be done to better prepare your Sunday school teachers?  How might you make your adult education classes more goal-oriented and less lecture-based?  How can you move your youth ministry away from an “entertainment” focus to a more educationally focused experience?  How can we change how we teach confirmation classes to better fit the development levels of the youth?

 We greatly appreciate Dr. Blanke’s insights and hope that our LCMS leaders will listen to him and our other LCMS education experts.  Renewed attention to religious education, effective Bible study, effective Sunday school, effective confirmation classes, educational-focused youth ministry, lay study retreats, and lay conferences in theology and the Bible would turn the “potential to renew congregational life and reverse downward membership trends” into a significant reality.  The LCMS might even grow again!