From seminaries to districts?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a denomination that has become a federation of affiliated synods (or districts as Missouri might say).  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the way the ELCA deals with candidacy for the ministerial roster.  An applicant completes a Candidacy Application Form, writes an Entrance Essay, participates in a psychological evaluation, undergoes a background check, and then is interviewed by the Synod candidacy committee.  The process also requires a Personal Health Assessment, a financial worksheet, and copies of all post-secondary education transcripts and continuing education certificates.  The applicant will select a an ELCA seminary, apply or may already have applied, and may attend a non-ELCA seminary but must affiliate with an ELCA seminary as well.  In a process of collaboration between a Candidacy Committee and the appropriate seminary faculty, the Candidacy Committee grants endorsement, affirms each candidate’s readiness to complete the candidacy process within the appropriate roster of the ELCA.  Then comes the final approval from the Candidacy Committee acknowledging that a candidate is qualified and competent to serve under call in a specific rostered ministry.  The bishop or designated staff person of each synod in the region and the Candidacy and Leadership Manger of the region to wrap up the details and figure out the particular Synod in which the candidate will be placed.  In this whole process, the seminary (or seminaries, in the case of one who attends a non-ELCA affiliated seminary) plays only a supporting role.

In contrast to this, the Missouri Synod has left the faculties of the two seminaries to not only provide the academic training and oversee the internship (called vicarage) but to certify the candidates for ministry in the Missouri Synod.  While I have often complained about this process and believe there needs to be a stronger role for the District President and the District in this process, some in Missouri seem to be eyeing the ELCA process with envy.  In an effort to reduce the role and influence of the current seminaries, some are looking at some sort of candidacy committee to deal with those who attend a non-Missouri seminary (currently it is not possible to be placed in a first call without attending an LCMS seminary or completion of one of the eleven (yes, 11) alternate routes through one of those same seminaries.  It seems that some of our Districts (mainly those District Presidents in those Districts) would like to localize this process and hobble together some sort of mechanism to bypass the seminaries.  We already have one route that sort of bypasses the seminaries (a joint program of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and Concordia University, Irvine).  Something like this model or one that effectively removes one of the Missouri seminaries from any real role is, apparently, an attractive model for those who do not like their students to go to a Missouri Synod seminary and come out Lutheran (or, at least, a different kind of Lutheran than some of those in those districts might envision).

It is a dangerous plan.  There is not much chance Missouri will approve of it now but in an age of fewer residential seminarians than are needed each year, it could be sold as a plan to beef up the lagging numbers at the seminaries.  It is this that will be used to sell such a plan to a church body frustrated by the lack of pastors.  It is this that will effectively transform Missouri into a mere federation of semi-autonomous districts and the image of what has happened in the ELCA already.  Missourians who are concerned for bolstering the number of pastors prepared each year should not be deceived.  This is not simply about the number of pastors but also the kind of pastors produced and presented to the congregations.  Missouri has a great temptation to decide to do one thing only to have what we decide to do be used for other purposes (remember the lay deacons and then the Specific Ministry Pastor program).  This is not simply a move to open up another alternate source of pastors for the LCMS but could become that which transforms not only the clergy but the core unity of the Synod with respect to those who serve her congregations as pastors (whether specific or general).  It might not be an interesting idea and perhaps sounds rather boring but Missouri needs to pay attention to the consequences of such a change.