# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S380
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

380

X. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 13-03 TASK FORCE

of us have faced. The problem, basically stated, is this: Where is
disciplinary unity found? How do we integrate the theological disciplines? In what ways do we encourage a synthesis of doctrine
and practice? Two answers have generally been given, argues Farley: (1) The so-called “essence” of the Christian religion, what we
might call a rigid systematic approach that fails to appreciate the
historical and liturgical life of the church; and (2) requirements of
training the clergy, what we might call a purely functionalist approach.
In 1811, F. C. D. Schleiermacher published A Brief Outline
of Theological Study.12 In contrast to the fourfold pattern and the
supremacy of the encyclopedia, Schleiermacher proposed a threefold organization for theological study: (1) practical theology, (2)
historical theology, and (3) philosophical theology.
First, Schleiermacher defined practical theology as a normative discipline that apprehends the rules for carrying out the tasks
of ministry. It is theory directly related to practice—assessment of
ministry—and includes the origins, history, and present situation of
the church. Historical theology is that which yields the knowledge
of Christianity. It embraces exegesis, church history, and dogmatics
as the organic expression of the church’s life in time and in specific
places. Finally, philosophical theology is described as a synthesis
of the details provided by historical theology. That which, in truth,
corresponds to the human spirit, for example, apologetics and polemics.
There are several strengths in Schleiermacher’s proposal.
On the one hand, all three disciplines communicate the essence of
Christianity. That is to say, no one discipline is independent of the
others. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, they all hang together, or they
all hang separately. For example, practical theology is not merely
a “technology of skills,” but it includes an informed theological
assessment of one’s culture and history as a necessary element
of one’s pastoral ministrations. Again, historical theology is not
merely a collection of details, but a fusion of exegesis, history, and
confession.
On the other hand, the proposal does have weaknesses. The
most important one, and it is one from which there is no recovery,
is that for Schleiermacher there is no normative doctrinal content to
be gleaned from the study of history, Scripture, and dogma.
What of theological education in the Lutheran tradition more
recently? Generally speaking, three models have been employed
in the training of indigenous clergy in the United States: (1) apprenticeship, (2) the “preachers’ seminary,” and (3) the “classical”
model.
When Lutheranism was first established in North America in
the 17th century, and even stretching through the 18th, most pastors were trained in Europe—notably at Halle and other pietist centers—and then came to the British Colonies in North America to
serve as missionary pastors. Muhlenberg and his colleagues formed
the Pennsylvania Ministerium in 1748 with the intent of establishing a theological seminary that would train pastors for the church.
Such a seminary did not come into existence until 1815 (Hartwick),
which consistently struggled for existence. Only with the founding of Gettysburg in 1826 was there a well-functioning stand-alone
seminary in the United States.
Until the development of the seminaries in the second quarter
of the 19th century, most North American Lutheran clergy trained
by apprenticeship. They studied theology under the direction of an
ordained pastor, often living with the supervising pastor. After a
time of preparation, the Ministerium examined the candidate and,
2019 Convention Workbook

if he successfully passed his exam, he was subsequently ordained.
Apprenticeship, however, was extremely tasking on the supervising pastor and uneven in the education that the candidate received.
Beyond that, it had an inherently individualistic character in that,
while examination was administered by the Ministerium, the student’s perspective of Lutheranism was largely shaped by the supervising pastor. This did not encourage formation in the context of the
wider church, as later seminary education did.
But where would the Lutherans turn? Where earlier traditions
had attached a course in divinity to their regular curricula in the
university (Harvard and Yale, for example, among the Puritans and
their ancestors), Lutherans began to institutionalize theological education at the time of the rise of the dedicated seminary. Later Lutheran seminaries included Gettysburg (1826); Canton, Ohio (later
Columbus, 1830); Southern (Lexington, Columbia, et al., 1831);
Altenburg, Mo. (later St. Louis, 1839); Springfield, Ohio (1845);
Fort Wayne, Ind. (1846); Wartburg (1854); Augustana (1860);
Philadelphia (1864); Augsburg in Minneapolis (1869); Luther in
St. Paul, Minn. (1890); Chicago (1891); and many others into the
20th century. Among American Lutherans, two forms of seminary
education existed. First, there was the “classical” model; based primarily on the German model and the fourfold pattern, the “classical
seminary” demanded the highest level of academic preparation for
candidates for the ministry. The “preachers’ seminary,” or “practical seminary,” featured a minimal theological education prior to
ordination. The idea was to prepare men for the mission field as
quickly as possible. Most of the seminaries in the Muhlenberg tradition mixed the two kinds of education here mentioned, and then
over the course of the 19th century became increasingly committed
to the “classical” model. In the case of the Missouri Synod, however, there were two distinct seminaries. The St. Louis seminary was
more classically oriented, while the Fort Wayne seminary leaned
more to the practical model. Not surprisingly, it was the latter that
provided the majority of candidates for the Synod for its first 25
years.
Ultimately, in the years 1861 to 1875, the two—the “practical”
and the “theoretical”—seminaries lived together in St. Louis. In
1873–74, the curricula of the respective institutions were as follows:

The Practical Seminary
1.

Dogmatics according to Conrad Dietrich

2.

The Symbolical Books and comparative symbolics

3.

Practical exegesis of the Old and New Testaments, and
an introduction to biblical history

4.

Church history

5.

Homiletics with special reference to Luther’s church
postille

6.

Pastoral theology

7.

Catechetical and homiletic practice

8.

Overview of the Latin texts of the Apology and Chemnitz’s Examen

9.

English grammar and translation

10. Various readings, especially in Luther

The Theoretical Seminary
1.

Encyclopedia and methodology