We Didn't Learn that at Seminary

Thoughts and Thanksgivings for the SMP program

Since Thanksgiving is on my normal newsletter day, I thought I’d send this a few days early. It’s long, but I hope it is worth your time and attention. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I earned my Master of Divinity degree in 2017. I was called to be a pastor in 2018. In my time as a pastor, I have heard this line, “We didn’t learn that at seminary!” or “They didn’t teach us that in seminary!” countless times. It’s a joke I’ve made myself when I encounter a particularly challenging situation. I didn’t expect the seminary to teach me everything I needed to know. That would be unreasonable. As with any profession, much of the learning must be gained through experience.

In my denomination, the LCMS, pastors can be certified through several different routes. The route I went through is the most prevalent. A four-year residential model with two years of school, a one year internship/vicarage at a congregation, and one more year of school.

There are also low-residency models that meet on campus for a few weeks a year, but much of their education is online. Typically in these programs the students are serving in a congregation as they are learning. If you are unfamiliar with these, feel free to look at the footnote below for more context.¹

A couple of weeks ago, new proposed policy requirements were released for one of these low-residency models, the Specific Ministry Pastor (SMP) program. The new requirements propose more restrictions to who can enter the program, and a renewed call to utilize the residential model as the standard.

The response to these requirements in my group texts and Facebook feed has been one of lament.

I have several deep concerns with these new guidelines that I will share below. But before I do, let me acknowledge this:

It is my impression that proponents of the new guidelines believe in thorough pastoral education and sound doctrine. They believe the more robust our pastoral formation process, the more secure soundness of doctrine in our synod will be, and the more unified we will be. They are persuaded that in person, residential education is the best way to educate and form pastors. For them, online education simply cannot accomplish what the residential model does. They view these guidelines as a return to the original intent of the SMP program, not as a shift in policy or practice.

I believe their opinions are arrived at honestly, not maliciously. I do not wish to attack their character or their intentions in what is below. As Premise 15 suggests, I think proponents of these guidelines and critics of these guidelines both value two things:

1. More pastors

2. Well trained pastors

I believe that the majority of disagreements we are having about pastoral formation are based on the order of priority of those two values.

My concerns about these proposed guidelines are arrived at honestly as well. I have been having conversations around this topic for more than a decade. I was nearly a part of one of the first SMP cohorts back in 2009 to help plant a church. The SMP program was presented as a possibility for me a few times between 2009 and 2013. I ultimately chose not to go in that direction, but I believe the SMP program is one of the most fruitful things our synod has done in living memory. It has produced great pastors. It has saved dozens of congregations from closing. (On that topic, see this encouraging video from Michigan District President Dave Davis.) To me, it has been a treasure and success.

So, to my concerns.

1. These Guidelines Could Have Been More Encouraging.

The pastors who have completed the SMP program have repeated expressed their pain at reading these new guidelines. Many of them would now be prevented from entering it. They feel unvalued, disregarded, and invalidated. They feel as though they are second-rate pastors. And they are not.

How these guidelines were released and shared felt a bit corporate. It has an encouraging spot in Premise 3 which says, “We thank God for the pastors formed through our SMP program and regard them with honor as called and ordained servants of Jesus Christ conducting valid ministry.”

The pastors who have completed the SMP program are a treasure, serving hundreds of congregations with Word and Sacrament and pastoral care. I think the guidelines themselves could have leaned into this encouraging language more and that would have been helpful. I also think quoting Premise 3 in the official story and social media announcing these guidelines would have been wise.

2. Organic Change Is Not Bad.

As I said above, proponents of the new guidelines are trying to return to what they view as the original intent of the program. The argument seems to be that the use of the SMP program somehow got out of hand, and we must return to the synod’s original intent. I’ve seen several people accuse congregations and SMP pastors of abusing the system in order to take a shortcut to pastoral ministry. I do not find such accusations helpful or credible. Yes. Perhaps what the synod initially envisioned with SMP has changed over time. But that is being treated as negative and detrimental, and I don’t think it needs to be.

Congregations saw the SMP program as an opportunity to support and train a potential pastor. To me, the congregational response is the actual synod—the congregations—envisioning something more, signaling to the seminaries and administration of synod that the initial intent was incomplete. A return then to the initial intent means we are not listening to our congregations. And that is why I think so many people are frustrated and lamenting. They don’t feel heard or considered.

3. Idolatry of Model and Preference

A seminary professor once said to me, “All idols start out as good gifts from God.” The residential model is a good gift from God. But I think we are in danger of making it an idol, something we look to for all good. It feels like we are expecting the residential model to solve all of our problems of disunity and soundness of doctrine. And it cannot do that.

When conversations about pastoral formation come up, many of the pastors I know that went through the MDiv program and residential model talk about it with great fondness and joy. They wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. They built life-long friendships through their time at seminary. And they cannot imagine how such comradery could be built without the residential model.

My encouragement to them is always the same: Talk to a pastor who went through the SMP program about their comradery. You will find it is stronger than you think. Indeed, I would argue it is oftentimes stronger than that of the residential model. And the reason is not complicated. MDiv students have this intense time together. Then are dispersed across the nation and world. As MDiv students, we relied on being in the same place as our classmates for our comradery, but after our first calls, we needed to learn how to keep those friendships alive at a distance. SMP students don’t have the challenge of the dispersion. They can keep their friendships going strong much more easily because the change from student to pastor is less stark.

Also, I have heard the assertion that is it not possible to have a healthy ministerium (that’s what a group of ministers is called) in which people are unwilling to move (for their education or first pastoral calls). I do not understand this assertion. I do not see it as factual or biblical. In some ways it is the seminary that moved in the days of the New Testament, not the ministerium. In the book of Acts we see Paul, Apollos, Peter, Barnabas, Silas, and others traveling around planting churches and training up local leaders. And while the book of Acts is largely descriptive, not prescriptive, to claim that we must do the opposite of what they did to be healthy does not make any sense to me.

4. The Demand for Sacrifice

Premise 6 in the guidelines is the one that troubled me the most. In my area, we have many congregations that cannot get pastors to come and serve them. They remain vacant for years, struggling. They seek to raise up a young man from within their congregation, but these guidelines tell them that they must sacrifice for the greater good of the church, and send the young man off to St. Louis or Fort Wayne. The congregation remains vacant and lingers without a pastor until they cannot keep the lights on and ultimately close.

I have also heard many pastors scoff at such congregations and their refusal to consolidate with other congregations or share a pastor. The accusation often arises that such congregations care more about their building than anything else. As I’ve worked with such congregations, that just hasn’t been true. They care about hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments. They care about their communities and want to reach them with the Gospel, but they need help. And they feel like the synod is unwilling to help them.

These congregations are being asked to sacrifice more than people realize. They are being asked to sacrifice being a part of the synod because many of these congregations will cease to exist. This is unfair. I can understand why such a congregation would consider other options. How are they supposed to walk together with the synod when from their perspective, the synod doesn’t seem to care if they die?

Part of Premise 6 of the guidelines says, “The SMP program should be structured in such a way that it does not discourage or detract from full-time, residential seminary preparation for men pursuing a lifetime of ministry in the LCMS.”

I would argue that the MDiv program, the residential model, should be structured in a way that it does not discourage or detract from the congregations of synod, so that it does not lead to more congregations closing. I think these new guidelines will likely lead to more congregations closing. I think perhaps the seminaries should consider how they will sacrifice for the congregations rather than the other way around.

5. Who Is the Great Teacher of Pastors?

As the title of this post says, nearly every pastor I know who went through the residential model has joked “they didn’t teach us that in seminary.” And though it’s a joke, it’s true. When I reach those difficult situations, I don’t call my seminary professors to ask for guidance. Maybe some people do, but I call another parish pastor. Or, I talk to one of my wise congregants.

The book The Hammer of God contains several stories about young pastors learning how to be pastors. One of the main themes is how the congregation is the great teacher of pastors. In one scene, a young pastor tries to console a despairing man on his deathbed. The pastor fails miserably to comfort the dying man. A woman shows up, an old neighbor of the dying man. She distinguishes law and gospel perfectly, pointing the man back to Jesus and away from himself. She teaches the pastor how to pastor. Lord knows this has happened to me.

Later in the book, another young pastor is in a conversation with the bishop. The bishop is trying to teach this young pastor lessons in law and gospel. Eventually telling him, “It probably does not pay, nor can I ever convince you with words, but out there…out there you will find a strict and demanding teacher.”

When the young pastor looks puzzled, the bishop says, “The congregation, my boy. The congregation is the best teacher a pastor can have.”²

I think one of the reasons I find the SMP so strong and fruitful is because it has found a beautiful balance of formation through theological experts, pastoral mentors, and the congregation. While the residential model does this with field work and vicarage. I found the temporary nature of both made them less effective. I don’t know a ton of SMP pastors, but I’ve never heard them joke about the seminary not teaching them things. Maybe they do, but perhaps the joke doesn’t apply as much because they are not solely relying on the seminary to teach them. They are relying on the congregation as well during their formation.

When CFW Walther talks about distinguishing Law and Gospel, he says that it can only be taught by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience. It’s something we are all still learning and will be until Jesus returns. I think the great teacher of pastors is the same teacher of Law and Gospel for all people: The Holy Spirit working through God’s people who are the professors in the school of experience.

6. Put Away the Unhelpful Rivalry.

Ultimately, I think we are treating the residential and non-residential models of training pastors as a competition, a rivalry. And in a rivalry, we must choose sides. One cannot cheer for the Packers and the Vikings. And so here, if this is a rivalry, we are being forced Support MDiv at the expense of SMP or support SMP at the expense of MDiv.

I would encourage us to consider Paul’s words in Philippians 1. Paul is in prison. Some people seemed to have formed a rivalry with him in Gospel proclamation and don’t care about his imprisonment. Paul acknowledges that some people “preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will.” Some people even “proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition.”

But Paul’s response to this is not to try to win. He says, “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”

Paul rejoices in Christ being proclaimed, no matter who, why, or how it happens. If Paul can rejoice in the Gospel being proclaimed by people who are glad he is in prison so that their popularity can rise, how much more can we rejoice in the Gospel being proclaimed in this situation?

I rejoice in the SMP program. I rejoice in the MDiv program. I rejoice in the EIIT program. I rejoice in the Center for Hispanic Studies. I rejoice in the Cross-cultural Ministry Center. I rejoice for commissioned ministers and ordained ministers. I rejoice for the laity and the clergy. I rejoice in online learning and in person learning. I rejoice that the Gospel is proclaimed.

The rivalry is unnecessary and unfruitful. Whether through a residential model or a non-residential model, pastors are being trained to proclaim Christ. And in that I will rejoice.

I think we should reconsider these guidelines. I think we should be more flexible, not less, with the routes people take to ordination. And I think we should give thanks for the SMP program and the fruit it has produced.

Thanks for reading.

Andy

1. The EIIT (Ethnic Immigrant Institute of Theology) trains pastors serving particular language groups. Many of the students are from African and Caribbean backgrounds. When I taught one of these courses, two of my students were preparing for ministry to deaf congregations. Students in this program are not required to have a bachelor degree and they do not earn a degree when they are certified.

The SMP (Specific Ministry Pastor) program has a similar low-residency rhythm as EIIT. It is often utilized by congregations that recognize a future pastors in their midst, and want to train them to become their pastor. This might be a smaller congregation in a vacancy or with a pastor nearing retirement. This might be a larger congregation that is looking to add pastoral staff to care for the congregation. I had the opportunity to teach a course for this program as well. Most of the students were serving small congregations. One was helping larger congregation plant a new church. The SMP does not confer a degree upon completion.

There is also the CMC (Cross-cultural Ministry Center) out of Concordia Irvine which has a low-residency model. It is similar to the SMP in some ways, but is more mission focused and confers an MA in theology upon completion.

2. Bo Giertz, “Three Days Before Christmas” in The Hammer of God, 124.