# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S379
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

X. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 13-03 TASK FORCE
These are the essential questions which one shall
ask the candidates for ordination, which one shall
teach them and of which one shall remind them. So
that they shall make proper use of these questions
in their sermons. Thus they may have a clear and
thorough summary of Christian doctrine, which
they can themselves consider and remember, and
which is necessary for their penance, their faith,
their proper prayer, their consolation in sadness,
and their own salvation. These questions are also
to be repeated during visitations of pastors and
people.7
In the spirit of Luther and Melanchthon, Lutheran orthodoxy
sought to institutionalize these concerns through the so-called
“evangelical cloister schools.” Foelsch describes them as follows:
“Boys 14–15 years of age were students in the ordinary subjects
of Latin schools and in addition, Greek, Bible, and music; after
several years they advanced to a higher cloister school where they
studied the Old Testament, logic, and other subjects; after that they
entered the Tübingen Stift where they lived together while studying
liberal arts at the university; finally when they had received the BA
degree they studied theology proper, for an additional year.”8 For
Lutheran orthodoxy, theological inquiry and its practical application in preaching and teaching are intimately linked. While many in
the 17th century criticized the orthodox Lutherans for abstracting
theology from its application to the lives of their hearers (calling
them “dead orthodox”), Craig Westendorf has challenged this caricature by showing that postille (books of sermons) of the orthodox
Lutherans intended to bring the fruits of careful theological inquiry
to practical application through proclaimed Word in which the Holy
Spirit gives God’s gifts to His people and points them to the Sacraments where they receive the very body and blood of their Lord.9
Pursuing a careful, demanding and robust theological education,
therefore, was an act of worship on the part of the candidate as
that candidate learned more fully the full extent of God’s mercy
in Christ for the sake of proclaiming and teaching it to a world
burdened by sin and crushed under God’s Law. The Lutherans
were convinced that through a thorough theological education, God
would form men for the ministry of Word and Sacraments, through
which God would grant His gifts to His people. God formed pastors in the careful study of dogmatics linked with the formative
experiences of worship in the community gathered around Word
and Sacraments.
The devastating impact of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648),
however, led many to downplay the centrality of doctrine. Pietism
brought new emphases to theological education, which continue
to impact the way that we frame theological education down to
the present. Pietism brought at least three unique elements to the
preparation of pastors. First, it stressed the centrality of the biblical
disciplines. Johann Albrecht Bengel sought a faithful biblical text,
which, once found, would frame the ministerial life and practice of
the pastors of the church. Second, Gottfried Arnold brought a new
reading of history, especially church history. Arguing for a kinder
and gentler reading of tradition, Arnold expanded the boundaries
of legitimate theological expression beyond those of the historic,
orthodox confession of the faith. There was less of an emphasis on
the explication of true doctrine, and more of an emphasis on the
“diversity” of Christian confession. Finally, Pietism demanded that
candidates for the ministry be “truly converted.” Pietism rightfully
stressed the centrality of the Scriptures, but unfortunately tended to

379

overemphasize the experience of the individual; personal awakening and conversion took precedence over God’s formation through
Word and Sacraments.10
By the end of the 17th century and through the 18th century,
Rationalism had also made inroads into the church and the way it
prepared its pastors. Its emphasis on philosophy and linguistics—
to use the language of Edward Farley—helped transform theology
from a habitus (attitude, aptitude) to a “science.” Combining orthodoxy’s emphasis on systematic/dogmatic theology with Pietism’s
stress on Bible, history, and conversion, Rationalism helped bring
about the emergence of “the fourfold pattern” of theological education.
In his groundbreaking book Theologia, Edward Farley advances the following thesis: “The fourfold scheme [of theological
education] was not itself the outcome of rigorous theological scrutiny, but of an appropriation of the past having the nature of a compromise.”11 Prior to the Thirty Years’ War, theology was considered
the pinnacle of education—all other education was preparatory to
the study of divinity. Rationalism helped shape theological education by forcing it to compete for legitimacy as a “science.” The key
shift in theological education at this point, argues Farley, was the
demand that theology be able to justify its existence—and the way
that it accomplished this was to divide theological education into
a series of independent disciplines. Where previously theological
education was seen as a “way of life” or a habitus, which sought
to create pastoral theologians or theological pastors, now the theological disciplines took on a life independent of one another and,
in a way, independent of their organic relationship to the life of the
church as the justification of their existence and the very source of
their life.
This development is best exemplified in the development of
the “Encyclopedia.” Here the disciplines of exegetical, historical,
and systematic theology were largely severed from their practice.
For example, in the work of Gundling we find a distinction between
classifications according to literature and method, as well as a distinction of “theory” and “practice.” Also, Mosheim defined the task
of theological education as the science of the education of church
leaders.
The fourfold pattern has its roots in these philosophical commitments. Summarizing Farley’s arguments, the fourfold pattern is
an organization of theological disciplines and their literatures for
pedagogical purposes, which makes a distinction between disciplines of theory and disciplines of practice and results in two kinds
of teaching: (1) belief and (2) action and life. The critical shift,
argues Farley, is an altered meaning of practical theology from a
moral category, which defines the life of the church as a whole, to a
distinctively clergy category, which is not common to the Christian
life. The result, believes Farley, has been disastrous. “Practical theology” becomes a term for ministry or clergy disciplines—simple
skills, we might say—and these are equal to practical application.
Adjusting Farley’s terminology somewhat for a Lutheran setting,
theological inquiry is no longer a shared habitus, in which God
graciously calls people into His Kingdom and enables them to live
in their God-given vocations. “Practical theology” became a set of
skills and functions learned by ministerial students for application
in the congregation. The result is a mixing of the older view and
way of implementing authority with the newer historical criticism:
“This shift is from theology viewed as a habitus, … to theology
used as a generic term for a cluster of disciplines.” Having generally adopted this model, the final result is a problem that many
2019 Convention Workbook