As I’m writing this blog post, a fire is currently spreading just 15 miles away. It has already destroyed thousands of acres of wildlife and is threatening thousands of homes, forcing evacuations. The fire is devastating and destructive, and it has caused and will continue to cause untold damage.
That being said, the fire has also led to a shift in attitude among the people in my city. In the last few hours, I’ve seen families share advice on documenting belongings, people open their homes to those affected, and an outpouring of goodness that might not have been as visible otherwise.
This is what happens in times of crisis. Things get messy. Destruction happens. And yet, people have an opportunity to demonstrate profound acts of love and kindness.
I bring this fire up not to ask for charity, fundraising, or even to highlight the amazing ways the church has been a blessing in all of this (which it definitely has been). Instead, I bring it up to make a point: After a crisis, we must ask ourselves, Are the things we’re doing working?
In California, discussions about controlled burns, water supplies, and other measures are taking place to improve responses to future disasters. I believe this kind of conversation should also be happening within the wider LCMS.
In 1860, just ten years after Pastor and President C.F.W. Walther experienced devastating wildfires in St. Louis, he was engaged in a heated debate with the Buffalo Synod, criticizing their views on the Office of the Keys and the implications of who has the authority to call pastors. In the November 13, 1860, edition of Der Lutheraner, Walther wrote against the Buffalo Synod, stating:
This synod knows very well that if, in agreement with the symbolic books, she admits that the entire church has the keys immediately, then her entire hierarchical doctrinal system will collapse like a house of cards. Therefore, as long as she is unwilling to give up her hierarchical system, she cannot admit that the church has the keys immediately and originally, and not through the office of the ministry.
Doubling down at the end of his letter, he continued:
Now finally, so far as the second appendix of the Smalcald Articles is concerned, it says there among other things by way of proof that "the churches must retain the power to demand, choose, and ordain pastors" as follows: "Here belong the sayings of Christ which witness that the keys were given to the entire church, and not to a few special persons, as the text says: Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them, etc." Whoever can after this still insist that the keys were not given to the entire church, to all believing Christians, but only "to a few special persons"—be it only Peter, only the apostles, or only the pastors—let him say what he will, but Lutheran doctrine it is not.
In fact, just a couple of months later, Walther tripled down on this argument, writing:
We grant that a congregation, if it is able, should draw one or more orthodox pastors to their election, even though no pastors should belong to their congregation. Except in a most urgent emergency, it should never elect and accept a pastor alone, but first have him examined by pastors who are already in office, and when he has passed the examination, ordain him and install him in office in an orderly manner.
I bring up these quotes because Walther understood a tension in his time. On the one hand, it is vital for a congregation to have a rightly called pastor who can carry out Word and Sacrament ministry. Yet, at the same time, the church must be able to function in a way that ensures its people are served.
Right now, over 10% of LCMS congregations do not have a called pastor (When Only One Man Remains in the Missouri Synod). We are not currently meeting all the needs of the body of Christ. And as secularism continues to rise in America and the church ages at its current pace, the need for bivocational and covocational pastors will only increase.
The church is the one who calls. Walther understood this. We understand this. As part of the Synod, we recognize the need for highly trained pastors walking together. In the 1980s, the
CTCR wrote on this, stating:
Who determines eligibility for calls?
The church itself does this. This means the confessional fellowship of congregations or the Synod. Scripture itself lists requirements, as noted above. Modern academic standards are not to be found in Scripture, of course. The church itself must determine from time to time the level of competence that it requires for various offices and the nature of the curricula needed to provide such competence.
The present practice of involving pastors, faculties, district presidents, the colloquy boards, and others is a proper response to the need for uniformity and the inclusion of the "wider church" in the decisions about who is eligible to study in preparation for the various offices of the church and who is ultimately declared eligible to be called. It is not possible to achieve totally objective standards, but the Word of God requires, first of all, that no one will place himself into any office of the church and also that congregations or segments of the church will not act unilaterally in placing persons into church offices.
At the Unite Leadership Center, we firmly believe there should not be a false dichotomy between the quality of pastoral education and the accessibility of pastoral formation. We do not need to compromise rigorous theological training to make pastoral ministry more viable for more men. Instead, we must ask: Are our current methods of pastoral formation serving the needs of the church effectively, or could we do more?
We see this in Scripture and history—God raises up shepherds for His people in times of need. This does not mean diminishing the importance of thorough training, but it does mean thinking creatively about how we equip men for ministry. Bivocational models, mentorship-based pastoral formation, and strategic partnerships between congregations may be necessary steps to ensure that every flock has a shepherd.
The wildfires in California force communities to rethink fire prevention and preparedness. In the same way, the pastoral shortage should force us to examine whether our structures and expectations are best suited to serve the church of today and tomorrow.
Walther’s emphasis on the church’s authority to call, coupled with our synodical responsibility to train and certify pastors, provides a framework to guide us forward—not into compromise, but into faithful adaptation.
So if you’re reading this blog and still on the fence, I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments below. What would it take to change your mind on this?
Comments