There are those who thought that the SMP Program was simply an alternative option for those who wanted to be a pastor in the Missouri Synod. Alternate routes is a catch phrase today for the idea that pastors can be formed in various ways and there ought to be choices and options. We have choices and options in just about everything. If you can customize your home screen why can't you customize your route to ordination? The idea here is that the guy who wants to be a pastor surveys the options and chooses the one that fits him and his circumstances. The end result is the same, sight? Ordination and the Pastoral Office. How you get there is simply a choice.
Many believe that this moves the formation of pastors closer to home, to the locale in which the pastor serves. The lead up to the invention of the SMP Program certainly lent some credence to the idea that the SMP Pastor was about place -- the congregation or community in which he serves was the context. Then language changed and context became a somewhat broader term than an ethnic community or geographical address. Many took this as a sign that the SMP Program was an alternative route and an alternative way of forming a pastor. Not only small and isolated congregations or inner city places long without a resident pastor saw hope in this but large congregations who wanted to raise up from within a guy to be their guy without having to lose him to seminary and vicarage for four years and possibly have him sent somewhere else or come back with a different kind of Lutheranism than he had before he was sent. So the local became more than simply context but about the way we do things here which presupposed that this was either unique or special in some way that four years and a seminary education might just dilute or even erase.
On the other hand, there are those who thought that the SMP Program was never an option at all but a very specialized solution for a very specialized context. The man did not choose the route but the Church sought out a man from within that context to be the pastor there and created a path in which that man would be able to continue to serve this community while going through the program. Perhaps that was the rationale for ordaining even before the completion of the program. In this program, the pastor, while having the full authority over the ministry of Word and Sacrament within that place, lacked some of the jurisdiction and authority of the general pastor (where he could serve, if he could serve beyond the parish and in district or synod, and the need for ongoing supervision gave the SMP restrictions the general did not have).
These believed that this replaced the disastrous licensed lay deacon idea hatched in 1989 in which non-ordained men were granted license to act as ordained. They recognized that there were rural and urban and ethnic places that might never have Word and Sacrament either do to their isolated location or difficult circumstance or particular language and cultural needs. The SMP was therefore an exception and not a route, a solution to a problem and not an open door to a new way to become a pastor. To them the restrictions made sense because they did not conceive of circumstances in which the SMP would be placed where those restrictions would hinder his service. They were shocked when large congregations began to use the SMP to add to their staff or when guys started looking at the SMP as a choir or option in the several options afforded him if he wanted to be a pastor. Plus they were sadly not surprised with the usual voices complained about any restrictions and advocated for eliminating those restrictions from SMP guys.
In the midst of this, the LCMS began to talk as if there was a goal -- ordination -- but also many paths to that goal -- alternative routes. We officialized the term so that it began to sound as if the four year seminary route was but one route, even if it was the so-called gold standard. All of this has created conflict and confusion. Perhaps it is high time to decide if the LCMS intended to create an alternative route or was creating a specialized solution to a particular problem. Perhaps the time has come to stop arguing about what was intended or how it could be used and for the LCMS to stand up and say what it meant and how the SMP is to function -- both in terms of training and restrictions. Perhaps it is high time for us to admit that our words left competing visions for this program and we all need to be on the same page. Perhaps it is past time for us as a church body to take this in hand and look over everything: what the curriculum needs to be, when ordination should take place, what restrictions should be placed upon the SMP (if any), how they are called and where they can be called, and the age and experience of those who could be approved for this program. I have my opinions as do many but we have had enough experience with this program to discover that it means too many different things to too many different people and this confusion must be clarified and resolved -- for the sake of the SMP guy, the places where he serves, the future of this program, and the well-being of the Synod.
Let me say one more thing. If we are to figure this out, we will need to form a review forum in which the loudest voices can speak but other more reasoned and calmer heads decide and recommend what we need going forward and why. We need to resolve this thing and not create a new reason for us to be less than united. Yes, we need to hear from the seminaries which do the training and we need to hear from the places where their service has been salutary and where it has not and, I suppose, a DP or two but I would hope that this was headed by folks who will not take to a podcast or blog to undermine these goals. For that reason, I am not a good candidate either. So there you have some of my thoughts on figuring out the way through this fog.
1 comment:
You know what they say, an old saying, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” Also there can’t be “two queens in the kitchen.” Perhaps, in the matter of “alternative paths” to increase pastors in the LCMS, too much input, too many voices are pulling the Synod in different directions, resulting in chaos. This is where true leadership is essential, a sort of “Speaker of the House” in political terms, to keep the members focused and find some consensus, a middle way. I know this is for you and the LCMS, a family conflict, to be resolved by your members, but it seems that pastors need a 4 yr seminary education as a basic non negotiable requirement for ordination, and those selected would be expected to follow Lutheran distinctives. Otherwise, you will have a Synod without unity, and in the end, no real identity. Pray for wisdom. Like everything else, only the Lord can help you with this problem too….Soli Deo Gloria
Post a Comment