It signals a loss of trust and/or a sign of diminished utility for seminaries in eyes of congregations and pastors. Although there have been doctrinal issues at both seminaries (such as post-modern hermeneutics, academic theory taking precedent over Scripture words, and professors who could not survive in a parish setting and some who have never even tried), I think the issue is coming from a different tact. Those who want a certain theology, not the confessional camp, are ok with little to no theological formation. They have the theology (or lack of it, really) they want, so why mess up the pre-packaged worldly attitudes and simplistic practical approaches that are seen as working with in-person seminary? The mega and big-box churches fit the bill here. They are churches unto themselves—which don’t need the synod, its confession, and now it seems, seminaries to train its pastors. Practicality is the name of the game—not confessors of God’s Word steeped in Scripture.
While the sad story of isolated, rural churches without pastors drives the SMP and at-distance seminary education narrative, the primary players are actually the massive churches with large numbers of pastoral staff. They don’t care much for theology in the first place—it can only hurt when outside forces seek to form biblically-thinking pastors. So big, modernist churches perpetuate their individualistic sinner-centered culture, while the traditional in-person seminary sticks to the tried and true formula. While there is some distrust of seminaries (including professors who have recently advocated for plastic scripture, an anti-confessions view of John 6, and removing Mark 16:16 from the Scriptures), the move away from seminaries is more radical. But the seminaries have not helped themselves by seeking to be academic more than faithful and doctrinal in the truest pastoral sense.
One online program being is promoted by the “Unite Leadership Collective.” Their slogan is unironically a real contradiction: “Developing Leaders through Biblical Lutheran Doctrine using Innovative Methods.” “Methods” or practice, what we actually do is to be influenced, normed, and guided by God’s Word—or else we have divorced God from reality and Christ’s Lordship over all things. What is new is untested and not from Christ’s Scripture, so it must be normed and judged. But the implication is that practice (defined by what works right now according to sinners), is the main criteria—which is quite short-sighted.
I personally think both seminaries are headed in positive directions and have been pleased to see progress at both. But the LCMS, and its seminaries, started this mess in the first place by promoting various sub-pastoral classifications and online education. By acknowledging online seminary training was ok for some, it made it ok for any online education to be sufficient—by watering down the qualifications for being an LCMS pastor.
Will the LCMS repent? Not just by calling out those behind these novel, unofficial programs (including the disgraced professor Dr. Jeffery Kloha, “President of The Center for Missional and Pastoral), but that its own official online and quasi-pastoral routes were short-sighted? I pray that is the case. Pastoral formation is too important to entrust to online attendance, no matter the institution leading the charge—may it be disgraced, rejected, and go the way of online communion and virtual church attendance. —ed.
Christian News 