<snip>
Interesting sub-unit with regard to the SMP, which is viewed so favorably in the article referenced, and very favorably by any number of folks in the LC-MS, on the one hand. On the other hand, there's a Steadfast article indicating from the author's hearing/perspective at the Symposium this week that Larry Rast, new sem president, is not favorable to SMP at Ft. Wayne.
So are we going to have the two seminaries duking it out over SMP, with sides being taken on the convention floor? My answer is a tentative "yes," although I am not at all sure about the Larry Rast commentary, having spoken with him about SMP recently myself. I say "yes" because we need something to fight about, to claim turf about, to take enormous bundles of our time and energy. We are Missouri and this is what we do.
Dave Benke
Reverend President,
Your summary of Pr. Rossow's post over at the site identified with the steadfast Elector John doesn't quite capture what Pr. Rossow wrote or what Dr. Rast said. Dr. Rast gave a two-part answer to the question about the future of SMP. (Some of Pr. Rossow's personal reflections went beyond what Dr. Rast said.)
The context of the question was Dr. Rast's presentation on theological training in the Lutheran Church from the time of Luther to the present including contemporary challenges. He noted the extraordinary routes to the pastoral ministry which existed for a time both in Luther's day and in Walther's day. The operative phrase here being, "for a time". In neither of those historical instances did the extraordinary route become the rule. When the specific circumstances that called for the extraordinary route were past, the church returned to the full academic training. (To a degree this is an oversimplification of Dr. Rast's paper. I imagine you could request a copy from him if you'd like the details.)
The question posed by the pastor, then, had to do with whether Dr. Rast felt it likely that that would be the pattern with the SMP or not. Dr. Rast's two point answer was immediate and brief. First, he said that the future of the SMP program is up to the synod. My take on his answer was that he was reflecting the reality of our polity. Simply put, the synod is the one with the authority to make decisions on how her pastors will be trained. His second point was that he believes the best way to prepare well-qualified pastors is residential theological education. As a faithful servant of the synod, the CTS president would seek to make that case as the future direction of the SMP program is discussed.
To a large degree, the question is not about whether or not to abolish the SMP program or a successor extraordinary route to the pastoral ministry. The real issue is whether the SMP program will replace the residential theological education model, as Pr. Gemin seems to favor in his final sentence
here, will become one of two "standard" routes to the ordained ministry, or will be determined to be inadequate as the primary means of training pastors for our congregations. If the last, the program could either be revised and strengthened, limited to restrict the "special ministries" to more exceptional circumstances than is currently the case, a combination of these two, or discontinued completely (until the next time we decide we need an exceptional route).
Given the way the program is structured--an adequate sample of Special Ministry Pastors to evaluate have only recently completed the initial program--we're just beginning to be able to take a look at the results. I would be shocked if at least some revisions to the program aren't indicated. Any new program, no matter how carefully planned and implemented, needs to be reviewed and at the very least tweaked once it's begun to operate. SMP would be unique if no changes whatsoever were indicated.
