LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 389

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 389

Furthermore, the preacher must know his audience and the spe-
cific intellectual, cultural, and spiritual impediments to the Gospel
that reside in those who hear it. For the Gospel to be conveyed ef-
fectively in a given age, the preacher must be able to identify those
aspects of it that the persons in his audience especially need. In
brief, preaching the Gospel requires hard, intellectual work.

Since the Bible itself does not say how much preparation is
enough, the church has the responsibility for determining the level
of competence that it needs in its ministers, with attention given to
the community it serves and the challenges of the surrounding cul-
ture. Depending on the needs of the day, individuals are trained
variously through apprenticeships, universities, prep-schools, and
seminaries. Practicums such as fieldwork, vicarages, and intern-
ships may be included. The length of this training can and does
vary. There is nothing sacrosanct about four or six year programs,
although there certainly may be good reasons for periods of train-
ing such as this. The inexhaustible richness of the Scriptures, com-
bined with the always-changing challenges of ministry, suggest that
the education and study of pastors cannot stop with graduation or a
first call. These must be lifelong.

Examination/Certification

The preparation or education of an individual has ordinarily cul-
minated in the examination and certification that attest to his fit-
Ness to serve in the office to which he is called. That is to say, the
preparation certifies that this man is able to convey the Gospel and
exhibit the necessary discernment for diagnosing the spiritual con-
dition of those who need the Gospel.

Who evaluates the graduates or candidates? While the church
is responsible for evaluating those whom it places into the pastoral
office, it has usually charged certain individuals or entities with the
task of exercising this responsibility on its behalf. Most often the
examination is carried out by those who have been entrusted with
the training and formation of the candidates—and appropriately so.
In Germany this was the theological faculty at the university. In the
case of our Synod, the responsibility for the evaluation and certifi-
cation of pastoral candidates has historically been placed into the
hands of the seminaries. Through the seminaries candidates are de-
clared qualified for a first call and formally commended to the
church. The church may also give to others in its midst—such as
interview committees (entrance to seminary), vicarage supervisors,
and District Presidents—a role in the final evaluation and certifi-
cation appropriate to the concerns of their particular office. Such a
role should not replace the certification offered by those who are
charged with the theological training of the candidates.

Can there be an ongoing evaluation or certification process for
those who already occupy the office? We normally consider the ex-
amination complete when a man is certified for ministry at gradua-
tion and when he accepts his first call. In the sixteenth century,
however, visitations and examinations were regularly carried out
in order to assure the church that the preaching of the Gospel was
being carried out faithfully. The laudable assumption behind such a
practice is that the Gospel deserves our best efforts and our inten-
sive study. The challenges facing the proclamation of the Gospel
surely do not end with seminary training. New intellectual obsta-
cles and cultural impediments arise continually. Such ongoing the-
ological examination does not undermine the divine nature of the
call, for certification and rostering are to be distinguished from a
call and ordination. Rather, examination and certification assure
the church that an individual is and continues to be qualified and
competent for the office in which he serves, or for receiving an-
other call. A person who has a call may not be as “apt to teach” as
he once was (as determined by the church). Most Pastoral Infor-
mation Forms (PIFs) today include some form of evaluation by the
District President, Circuit Counselor, and the congregation. It is
also possible, and perhaps even advisable, that a more formal ex-

amination could take place at checkpoints in a man’s ministry or
through some form of continuing education so that the church may
continue to receive the highest quality of care from its pastors.

How does the examination occur? In the sixteenth century an
examination often took place over a period of several hours in front
of a panel consisting of Luther, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon.
Within the Missouri Synod the examination historically has in-
volved a number of evaluations during a man’s seminary training,
such as coursework, fieldwork, and vicarage—all of which culmi-
nated in his certification for ministry. Most often these evaluations
have focused on the means through which God creates and pre-
serves the church as the assembly of believers, namely, the Gospel
and sacraments. Hence, they have been weighted, and rightly so,
toward an emphasis on the marks of the church. Recognizing the
human and institutional side of the church, the Synod now also may
include the use of psychological profiles, personal interviews, and
Self-Evaluation Tools (SETS) for the evaluation of a candidate.
These‘instruments are not utilized for the purpose of assessing an
individual’s personal faith, but for evaluating the “First Article”
abilities and skills of the one who is to be placed into the service of
the Gospel.°' For pastors in the field the evaluation historically has
taken place through the visitation and conversation of the District
President, the congregations, and other pastors.

Selection and the Extending of a Call

A man may aspire to the pastoral office and prepare himself
with a view to presenting himself as ready for service in that of-
fice, but he cannot place himself into the office. The office of
preaching the Gospel belongs to Christ. One may not usurp what is
only Christ’s to give. Rather, God identifies and selects an individ-
ual through the church for a particular location. This too has re-
mained a sine qua non for the theology of the call in the history of
our church. One can see this in chapters 1, 6, and 14 of Acts.

Through whom does God call? The Congregation? Board of
Regents? A Recognized Service Organization? A synod? The ob-
vious answer is the church. But who or what is the church? In the
Lutheran Confessions the church can refer to (1) the “holy Christ-
ian Church” (una sancta ecclesia) of the Apostles’ Creed; (2) the
territorial churches in Saxony (a number of congregations, consis-
tories, superintendents, pastors); or (3) local congregations (teach-
ers and hearers). But in practical terms the answer is more diffi-
cult. Is every person within the church involved? Individuals and
groups within the church may be authorized to represent the church
and act on its behalf. In Acts 1 the disciples acted and in Acts 14
Paul and Barnabas undertook the task. During the Reformation a
consistory called or a superintendent appointed the pastor. Individ-
ual congregations played a-minimal role, though pastors were never
imposed on congregations without their consent. The congregation
often possessed veto power over a proposed candidate.

In his day Walther insisted that the voting members of the con-
gregation, as the representatives of that congregation, do the se-
lecting and calling. But a congregation did not act in a free-lance
manner and call an individual in isolation from the church at large.
A pastor from a neighboring congregation served as a vacancy pas-
tor and the District President supplied names for the calling con-
gregation’s consideration, names of men who were recognized as
qualified by the church.at large. In the case of graduates from a col-
lege or a seminary, the congregation called through a placement
board consisting of the District Presidents and seminary represen-
tatives. In each of these cases congregations-were not to disregard
recommendations of the District President nor was the District
President to ignore the concerns of the congregation.

The call process has grown more complex with each passing
year. In recent years many new procedures for selecting and calling
a candidate have arisen partly because of a lack of trust in those
who have been designated with the responsibility of calling (con-

2004 Convention Workbook