Not a straight line downward trend. . .

A friend sent me some numbers regarding the enrollments at Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne and Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. Although we often think that there has been a long and gradual decline in the graduates presented for ordination, the reality is slightly different and it does not quite fit the scenarios offered by those who would like to make radical changes in the way Missouri forms pastors.  I thought it might be worth a look.

Taking Liberty University out of the mix (for what I would call obvious reasons), the whole of the schools covered by the Association of Theological Schools (the accrediting agency) shows that numbers for the total combined enrollment did, indeed, gradually decline year by year from 2016 through 2024.  

2016—29,282
2017—28,597
2018—28,597
2019—28,531
2020—28,183* Covid Year
2021—26,828
2022—25,437
2023—23,926
2024—23,812

That represents an 18%+ decline overall.  Now, if you did figure in Liberty when it acquired ATS accreditation in 2018, the numbers would be slightly different but typically American seminaries counted by ATS dropped steadily and rather evenly over the years.  For Missouri the situation is a little different.  Yes, there was some decline but not nearly as pronounced nor as predictable as the ATS numbers reveal.

Average enrollments for Ft. Wayne and St. Louis are rather steady.  A decline at Ft. Wayne of 8% and at St. Louis of a little over 15% and for the two together a little more than 12%.  This means that we are in a holding pattern more than a crash and burn scenario.  Those who wish to reshape how we train our pastors need to pay attention.

2016—    159            209
2017—    157            208
2018—    158            191
2019—    145            191
2020—    152            201
2021—    158            179
2022—    160            179
2023—    161            188
2024—    146            176       

We should not be consoled by these numbers nor should we slack in our efforts to recruit men for the pastoral ministry but neither should we presume that this decline is a continuous trajectory that signals a need for radical action.  If anything, it should give us a bit of breathing room to be deliberate and careful to make sure that we don't screw things up in an effort to fix something that may not be quite as urgently in need of repair as some presume. 

So I am suggesting that we not listen to the chicken littles who are predicting the demise of everything as we know it nor should we be complacent.  My radical thought is don't screw this up in the name of progress or urgency.  We are seeing good numbers with the Set Apart to Serve (for all church workers).  The recruitment task lies largely with pastors and congregations and not with programs or seminaries.  We identity and support men for the cause and the seminaries form them with help from a vicarage year and good, solid examples within their home congregations.  Is what we are doing perfect?  Of course not.  But it is not so bad it justifies wholesale change and that is my fear.  Those who advocate opening up the doors to a very different way we train and certify graduates are counting on fear ruling the day.  Lets make sure that we are not uninformed so that what we do will not have to be undone down the road -- when it may be too late.  

I may shock a few folks. . .

Now that both Lent and Easter are behind us -- at least for this year -- it is with some fear and trepidation that I offer these words.  Lent is not to be an extended version of Holy Week.  I am sure that some on both sides of the pulpit will disagree but let me continue to poke the lion anyway.  Not all the readings appointed for the Sundays in Lent (no matter what lectionary you use) rehearse over and over again the readings of Holy Week.  You should not either.  I grew up with an understanding of Lent that basically affirmed the whole purpose of this season was to render as explicitly as possible the horror of sin, the agony of the cross, and the details of everything from Palm Sunday through Holy Saturday.  It could have been worse.  I am not at all saying this was the worst thing that could have been preached but I am saying that the purpose of Lent is not to dwell solely on the final days of Jesus' life before His rest in the tomb and resurrection.  The personal discipline of Lent as well as its churchly focus is on the shape of Christian living under the cross.

It might be odd for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach morality in the extra services of Lent.  Sanctification is not a topic alien to Lent but very appropriate.  We need to be taught how to mortify the flesh (when did you ever hear a sermon on that in a Lutheran congregation?).  We need to be taught how to practice the self-denial and walk worthy of our calling that befit those who have been baptized and who believe in Jesus Christ.  Calls to morality are far too few and far too careful not to offend.  Perhaps we ought to be offended during Lent.  

It might be odd for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach over and over again the Creed (Apostles fits Advent and Nicene fits Lent).  We need to have this creed preached into us so that we can speak it forth within the gathering of the faithful on Sunday morning, teach it too our children, and grow up in its faith and truth.  Lent is a great time to rehearse for the people what the words mean which we confess so matter of factly on Sunday morning.  Preach the creed regularly or else they will become largely ceremonial words (which they are not).  This we believe is a good way to begin a Lenten homily.

It might be pretty normal for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach the catechism (the Small one by Luther).  We tend to think of the catechism as words for a kid to learn until they are confirmed when they never deal with them again.  Wrong.  Preach the catechism.  Help us to hear the words we should be reading and praying regularly already and help us to learn them so that we might teach them well to our children.

Don't worry about a gimmick.  An acrostic might be nice but you don't have to create a sermon meme in order to preach during the penitential seasons of the Church Year.  You don't need to be clever by half to prove your people were smart to call you pastor.  Preach faithfully the things we ought to know already and you will find how many things we do not know as well as how earnest people are about things as common and ordinary as the stuff of daily life.

It is June and you have six months to think about it before Advent is upon you and Lent shortly thereafter.  Think about it.  Leave the Passion narratives for Holy Week and preach faith and life in Christ the crucified and risen Lord.  If you cannot help yourself, you can go back to preaching Lent as an extended Holy Week in a couple of years and tell me off by saying you tried it and it did not work.  I don't think that will happen but it is your out if you think I am wrong. 

One more time. . .

In my first call there were those who told me that I prayed like my prayers came from a book.  I thought it was a compliment.  It was not.  Real prayer came from the heart.  Who can argue with that?  Of course, real prayer comes from the heart.  Is there a conflict between coming from the heart and coming from the book?

Of all the things Rome should have been embarrassed about in the wake of post-Vatican II changes to the Mass, the Prayer of the Faithful ended up being the saddest.  You may not account for what people will do to undo the integrity of what is put out there but this was designed for exactly that purpose.  At the local level people form their own intercessions and pray them on Sunday morning.  But that was the problem.  

I would not call it an exaggeration to say that the result has been terrible.  In the end, it was hard for the thinking and listening faithful to add their Amen to them -- not because they could not hear or understand them but precisely because they could not forget what they had heard and how sad it was against the promise of what could have been and should have been.  From the trite, banal, and sugar coated petitions that appealed only to sentiment to the political and social propaganda masquerading as prayer to the petitions designed not to offend people but surely offended God, it was a disaster.  It still is.  

Lutherans are not far behind.  We have traded the careful, eloquent, and rich words of the old General Prayer for words that belong in the announcements rather than a petition directed to the Lord of all.  We listen to find out news rather than to hear what is being prayed so that we can add our Amen to the petitions.  It would be a tragedy if it were not a travesty.  At some point, those in the LCMS headquarters decided that something of substance and with words that not only pray but teach us to pray should be offered.  Thus the Synod's offering sent by email as starting point for some and the quick and easy end run for others.

Alas, the genie is out of the bottle.  We could but won't go back to the General Prayer of the past.  But we could and should go back to learning how to craft faithful and eloquent intercessions befitting the Church and useful for teaching the faithful to pray.  I long for the days when people considered this one of the most important times of the liturgy.  Sadly, it is too often a placeholder in the Divine Service today.  The presider has not give due time to consideration of and composition of the Prayer of the Faithful and so the people are dulled into a sense that it all does not matter that much.   

We Lutherans do not have a GIRM -- General Instruction in the Roman Missal.  What it says, however, is not unhelpful to us as well. 

In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world. As a rule, the series of intentions is to be

1.  For the needs of the Church;

2. For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;

3. For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;

4. For the local community.

Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.

It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community (GIRM 69-71). 

Maybe we Lutherans ought to look in our own worship books for good examples of such a Prayer of the Faithful.  I would commend you to reflect upon the examples on page 265 or 249 of Lutheran Service Book.  While you can surely do better than either of these examples, please do not do worse.  My own pet peeve is names.  We can use the Christian first name and that is enough -- even for the President and surely for the sick.  And don't forget to allow some silence for the faithful to name in their hearts those whose names were not read or did not get listed in the worship folder.  Also, it would be good to teach folks the value of silence before the final petition invites their Amen.  We all have our own prayers to add, don't we?  While everyone is so fully accustomed to the form, Lord, in Your mercy/hear our prayer, I actually do prefer the other form (ektene) in which we ask the faithful let us pray to the Lord and they respond Lord, have mercy.  It is a pretty traditional form, don't you think?  So if I have pressed a nerve, so be it.  Let's do a better job with the Prayer of the Faithful.  Oh yes, this is definitely the job of the pastor.  It is not that others cannot do it but that this is one of the most important parts of his vocation.

Not ever. . .

An alert reader pointed me to this.  The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center General Social Survey (NORC-GSS) is, as it claims for itself, the longest-running, most respected social survey produced by that University.  Who am I to argue?  If that is the case, then its most recent survey about women and children is even more shocking.  It put into a graphic the alarming state of affairs for American women.  Indeed, although it does show how political ideology affects the desire of a woman to become a mother, there is little to give hope even to the conservative or traditional woman or mom.  I hope it is flawed and its statistics in error but I fear neither is the case.

I am sure you do not need me to read the graph for you.  In case you do not get my point, let me say it bluntly.  We might expect that liberal thinking women might not wish to have a child ever (if they have not had one by age 35) but did you see that conservative thinking women were not far behind in 2010 and even now a third or more of them agree.  No child.  Never.  So much for the future.  They have already decided, 75%+ of those on the left with just under 40% on the right.  We have all drunk the kool-aid.

No wonder children are a hard sell today.  So many have already decided either they are a bother too much to bear or not important enough to be bothered with at all.  Europe has led the way in this and so have some of the Asian cultures (China by governmental policy) but America has learned this terrible lesson and taken it to heart.  Not ever.  Gulp.

Those who know me know that I am not one of the those men who think that a woman ought to be barefoot, pregnant, and standing either in front of the stove or washing machine their whole lives but wow.  Has it become so radical to suggest that children are a blessing from the Lord, that children are normal for marriage, and that motherhood is the higher calling?  Have we surrendered that position to those who insist on reproductive rights at the cost of the child, who proclaim self-fulfillment over sacrifice, and who insist that marriage and children are optional?  My question is not why liberals think this way but how can one who calls themselves conservative also think this way?  I hope and pray that the numbers who do hold this opinion and call themselves conservative are dropping but I also fully realize that their numbers will not drop by the rest of us keeping silent on this point.  So consider this one of my initial volleys in the war of words that will certainly follow.   

 

What does it mean to translate?

My wife spent time in Germany as an honors language scholar and the German I learned was for reading and not quite for speaking.  So when we would encounter Germans in New York City who were speaking in their native tongue, I would eagerly ask what they were saying.  Sometimes she would answer with the gist of it all and sometimes she would say that it was such an idiom that it could not be translated into English.  That would inevitably lead to my frustration as she laughed at their jokes or smiled bemused by their comments while I was left in the dark.

That is the problem with translation.  While we would like it to be rather mechanical and somewhat easy, it is not.  It is not possible to mechanically translate the words as they are on the page without occasionally and perhaps even often ending up with something that either does not make sense or does not have the sense of the original.  Literal translations are editorial every bit as much as dynamic translations simply because they require the reader to do what the translator did not.  So somebody must make an editorial decision about how to render the words from their original into the language you want them to be and that somebody is either the reader trying to make sense of a literal hodgepodge of word "translated" without communicating the idea or sense of what is there or the translator.  One of you will be doing that work so which one is better equipped?  The reader or the translator.  This is not only a matter of fidelity to the text but the work of rendering one language into another out of one culture and into another.

Translation is not a mechanical process; it is an art form.   It is often surprising to people that old and familiar sayings in English have heir source in Scripture.  That is often because the translator has rendered the words literally without communicating the idea.  Look up the phrase by the skin of my teeth.  It is from the Scriptures.  Job 19:20, to be exact.  One version says My flesh is corrupt under my skin, and my bones are held in my teeth.  That is misses the point.  Another says My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth.  Google translator can render the words in English but it so often struggles to convey the text and idea in sensible English.

I must confess that I am in awe of the work of a good translator.  Note the singular there.  I am sad to report that too often translations are committee efforts and the committee actually votes on the one they like or chooses the one that they can all live with while the soul of the words is sometimes muted or made bland in an effort to be clearly understood.  While no one in their right mind would every say that Scripture is not clear or that it does not clearly communicate all that we need to be saved, that statement does not mean that we have no need for translators or that their work is ordinary.  Translation is also an art because it not only requires of the translator that they know two languages well -- the Biblical text and English.  That might be a common assumption but it is not a fact.  Not all translators know English well enough to aid their translations.  So let me express my appreciation to the good work of good translators.  They are doing a difficult job and one that requires an aptitude, skill, and knack -- over and above the knowledge of what the words mean.  This is surely why some translations endure and why some do not.