Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2013 · 65th Convention, St. Louis › Page 408
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 408
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
front matter 17
front matter 18
front matter 19
front matter 20
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
Page 369
Page 370
Page 371
Page 372
Page 373
Page 374
Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
Page 382
Page 383
Page 384
Page 385
Page 386
Page 387
Page 388
Page 389
Page 390
Page 391
Page 392
Page 393
Page 394
Page 395
Page 396
Page 397
Page 398
Page 399
Page 400
Page 401
Page 402
Page 403
Page 404
Page 405
Page 406
Page 407
Page 408
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
Page 443
Page 444
Page 445
Page 446
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
408
Specific Ministry Pastor (SMP) Task Force
distributed by the Specific Ministry Pastor Committee (attached as
Addendum B). The following is a summarization of those portions
of the White Paper that the task force believes are of particular significance to this report.
enrollment (545) resulted in a 1SMP to 4.3 residential enrollment; and
the 2011 SMP enrollment (157) compared to the residential enrollment (491) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to 3.1 residential students.
Enrollment History: Numbers of Students (Addendum B, p. 55)
A topic of current discussion is the specific categories of service
intended to be addressed by the Specific Ministry Pastor Program. In
the minds of many, the program was to take the place of and assume
the intentions of the DELTO program, preparing pastors for hard-toserve ministries not suited to calling full time, residentially trained
men. Res. 5-01B, while granting that to be the case in part, placed
emphasis on other specific ministries such as mission developers and
planters, staff pastors, and the like.
Initially, attempts were made to categorize types of service, resulting in more than a dozen categories, some with only one student
identified (White Paper, p. 18). A March 2012 effort to categorize
students in more general categories has resulted in a general picture
of the students participating in the SMP program and the service they
anticipate providing in the future.
With 154 of 157 current participants responding, 94 students
(61%) identified themselves as “staff pastor (or vicar)” in a multipastor congregation, working primarily internally (e.g., youth, music,
education, evangelism, or their congregation’s satellite site); 17 students (11%) identified themselves as “staff pastor (or vicar)” in a
multi-pastor congregation working primarily externally (e.g., mission developer, church planter, etc.). Of 154 participants, therefore,
111 (72%) consider their work to be that of a staff pastor of a multipastor congregation.
Of the remaining 43 participants (28%), 30 students identified
themselves as “sole pastor (or vicar)” providing Word and Sacrament
ministry in an established site that is economically challenged (e.g.,
few people, remote location, etc.), one that cannot support a “general
pastor” (e.g., with an M.Div. degree or Alternate Route certification).
The remaining 13 students (8%) identified themselves as “sole pastor (or vicar)” working as mission developer or church planter (not
working from the context of a multi-pastor congregation).
These numbers and percentages change somewhat when the 154
respondents identified what they anticipated would be their future
service. Now 82 students (53%) anticipated serving as a staff pastor working internally in a large congregation; 20 students (13%)
anticipated serving as a staff pastor working externally in mission
outreach; 37 students (24%) anticipated serving as a sole pastor in
an economically challenged site; and 15 students (10%) anticipated
working in mission outreach apart from the context of a multi-pastor congregation.
This study also obtained information regarding current and future
employment circumstances. Of those responding, 72 students (47%)
are employed in another paid position in addition to their SMP service, while 81 students (53%) are not employed otherwise than their
SMP position of service. When asked what they anticipated in their
future service, 50 students (32%) stated that they anticipate employment in another paid position in addition to their SMP service, while
104 (68%) anticipate full-time employment as an SMP pastor.
When the on-campus orientation of the first group of students
(“cohort”) took place in the fall of 2008, Concordia Seminary (“St.
Louis”) began its program with 29 new students, while Concordia
Theological Seminary (“Fort Wayne”) began with 26. After adding
25 students in the fall of 2009, 24 in the fall of 2010, 19 in the fall of
2011, and a total of 34 new students in the spring quarters the latter
three years, St. Louis had enrolled 131 SMP students. According to
the White Paper, 20 students left the program during the four years,
leaving 111 enrolled in the St. Louis program by early 2012. During
the same period of time, Fort Wayne added 10 students to the original 26 in 2009, 8 more in 2010, and 7 more in 2011, for a grand
total of 51 enrolled during the four years. Five students left the Fort
Wayne program during the four years, leaving 46 enrolled by early
2012. In short, SMP enrollment at both seminaries after four years
totaled 157 students, 25 having left the program (16.5%) during the
course of those years.
Enrollment History: Comparison of Student Body Composition
(Addendum B, p. 58)
A topic of current discussion is the comparative size of the SMP
student enrollment and the residential student enrollment at the seminaries, and the consequences of those comparative enrollments for
the Synod’s seminaries going forward. The White Paper provides
helpful information.
How do SMP enrollment numbers relate to residential student
enrollment numbers? In St. Louis in 2008, the 29 new SMP students and the 93 new residential amounted to a ratio of 1 SMP to 3.2
residential students. In 2009 that ratio dropped to 1 SMP to 3.5 residential. And in 2010 and 2011, the ratio was 1 to 2.9 and 1 to 4.1
respectively. At Fort Wayne, the 2008 enrollment of 26 SMP and
55 residential resulted in a 1 SMP to 2.1 residential ratio, followed
by ratios of 1 to 6.2; 1 to 6; and 1 to 5.1 students. The new student
enrollments of the two seminaries combined and averaged out over
four years resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP student to roughly 4 residential students.
When SMP total enrollment numbers are compared to the total
residential populations of the seminaries, St. Louis’ 2008 SMP enrollment (29) compared to residential (408) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to
14.1 residential; 2009 total SMP (49) and residential (376) resulted in
1 SMP student to 7.7 residential; 2010 SMP (87) and residential (326)
resulted in 1 SMP student to 3.7 residential; and 2011 SMP (111) and
residential (309) resulted in 1 SMP student to 2.8 residential.
Making the same comparisons with Fort Wayne total enrollment
numbers, the 2008 SMP enrollment (26) compared to the total residential population (252) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to 9.7 residential
students. In 2009, total SMP enrollment (32) compared to total residential enrollment (246) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to 7.7 residential
students. 2010 SMP (40) and residential (219) resulted in 1 SMP to
5.5 residential students, while the 2011 SMP enrollment (46) compared to the residential student population (182) left a ratio of 1 SMP
to 4 residential students.
When combining the numbers for both seminaries, the 2008 total
SMP enrollment (55) compared to the total residential enrollment
(660) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to 12 residential students; the 2009
total SMP enrollment (81) compared to the total residential enrollment (622) resulted in a ratio of 1 SMP to 7.7 residential students;
the 2010 total SMP enrollment (127) compared to the total residential
2013 Convention Workbook
Enrollment History: Types of Service (Addendum B, p. 60)
Licensed Deacon Program (Addendum B, p. 91)
In the minds of many, the introduction of the SMP program was
expected to reduce the use of the licensed lay deacon program that had
been introduced by the 1989 Synod convention. Eighteen months following the 2007 convention, a special task force sought to gain from
the Synod’s 35 district presidents their initial reaction to the SMP
program by conducting a survey. The survey also sought to determine the extent to which licensed lay deacons were being used. Three
years later (February 2012), the survey was repeated to compare data