Thinking About Pastoral Formation
Concordia Seminary Professor, LCMS Central Region Vice President Candidate Rev. Dr. Joel Biermann, Shares His Unique Insights on This Important and Timely Topic
by Joel Biermann, Concordia Seminary St. Louis Professor of Systematic Theology
July 19, 2026
As the LCMS continues to discuss and debate paths into the Office of the Ministry, the conversations have a way of devolving into acrimony, polarizing positions, and passion driven by unexpressed and often unacknowledged subtexts. Things become hopelessly more complicated when healthy doses of both oversimplification and over-complexification are added to the mix. Any “final words” on the subject of ministerial formation are probably always premature; but a few observations may help focus and clarify the discussions along the way and perhaps even tamp down some of the vitriol and nonsense that is too often encountered.
First, it must be remembered that scripture prescribes precisely nothing as required preparation before service in the Office. Of course, we have the example of Jesus quite deliberately shaping his disciples during his earthly ministry, and Paul provides explicit direction on the necessary character and aptitude of men who would serve as pastors. But nothing is said about intelligence, formal education, academic credentials, or length or location or manner of training. The biblical picture is quite simple and maddeningly vague: through his church, Christ puts a man into the Office to serve as his under-shepherd. How that happens apparently does not matter; what the man is there to do does matter.
The Confessions reflect this same focus. Pastors are put into the church to deliver God’s gifts to God’s people. That’s what counts. Nothing is said about the process of preparation, minimum requirements, or length or means of training. The only thing that is required is that the man in the Office be rite vocatus—rightly called. In other words, he must follow the prescribed rules for entry into the office. And lacking any particulars about those rules in either scripture or confession, it is apparent that the prescribed rules constituting rite vocatus are those prescribed by the church. It is entirely at the discretion of the church in any given time or place to determine the process and requirements that make a man rite vocatus.
Churches or congregations who agree to walk together as a synod will presumably agree on their shared practices related to who serves in the Office, what sorts of procedures will be followed to put a man into the Office, and what degree of training should be demanded before he is put into the Office. These are decisions made by the church based on what the church determines to be best. In other words, any requirements beyond the scriptural guidance related to character and aptitude are entirely, and rightly, the product of the church. The only mandate is that the man is able to do what he is put there to do. Deciding, concretely, what exactly that entails is the decision of the church. The church could decide that a man must have a PhD to be a pastor, or a church could decide that two years at a Bible School is sufficient, or they could insist that a man have no training beyond his experience of living as a follower of Christ. It is up to the church to decide the criteria and process.
This means that if the church puts a man into the Office, he is a pastor in the one Office. Whether he has a PhD, DMin, MDiv, MA, BA, AA, a certificate, or no formal training is irrelevant. He is in the Office. If the church has determined that a man trained through the SMP process is a pastor, then he is a pastor, period. There is one Office. And those in the Office preach and teach the same gospel truth. The needs of individual congregations and situations can determine which particular pastor best fits in which place. It has always worked this way.
Having taught more than a half dozen SMP courses, I can attest to the rigor of the program, the ability, integrity, and caliber of the students, and the reality and impact of the formation that occurs. The men who complete this program are pastors because they are able to deliver God’s goods to God’s people. Those who imply or insinuate that their preparation is somehow deficient or inadequate to being a “real” pastor, should teach a SMP class or perhaps talk with the parishioners these men serve before speaking. Suggesting that men trained in a SMP program should be able to deliver these goods only in exceptional situations or extenuating circumstances misses the entire point of what it means to be in the Office. These men are not stand-ins or fill-ins or temporary solutions. These men are pastors, period. Whether they bring God’s gifts to 15 people or 1500 people is irrelevant. Whether they are the only Lutheran pastor for 100 miles in any direction, or the fourth pastor in a large congregation is irrelevant. They are God’s man in God’s church delivering God’s gifts. This is the theological reality.
It is up to the church to determine the standard for entry into pastoral ministry. How much Greek and Hebrew, if any, is the church’s decision. How may courses spent reading the Confessions or the Bible or church history is the church’s decision. How much time spent learning about sermon structure and rhetoric is the church’s decision. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if every pastor spent 10 or 12 years simply studying theology—a PhD as minimum is arguably a great standard for a good pastor (hopefully, the ad absurdum argument is apparent). But what is actually necessary for a man to be able to bring God’s gifts to God’s people? That is up to the church to decide. And she needs to make that decision based not only on inertia, nostalgia, academic arrogance, ecclesial control, expediency, finances, convenience, preference, or fear. The church needs to consider all of the relevant factors and then decide what it takes for a man to be a pastor. And there are a host of relevant factors to consider: maintaining and inculcating doctrinal fidelity, financial realities for individuals and congregations, the challenges of the surrounding culture, and opportunities created by ever-advancing technology, to name only a few. But the bottom line must always be the outcome of God’s people being formed in God’s truth and comforted with God’s gospel. That is what finally matters.
Too often it seems that ulterior motives are driving discussions about paths into the ministry. But preferences for worship style or concerns over the undue influence of strong personalities or fretting over a lack of control are not theologically defensible motives for determining appropriate requirements for entry into the Office.
The church needs to think carefully about pastoral formation, and that thinking must be grounded in and normed by doctrinal truth and then shaped by all the contingencies of our present situation. What the church decides should be embraced and supported by all. If we call a man who came through the SMP “pastor” then he is a pastor, and no one should denigrate the man or the Office by speaking as if he is somehow less than a real pastor. As he promised, Christ will provide for his church. His Spirit is present with us. Where he leads remains to be seen. But as we talk and think and decide about these issues, it is vital that we are shaped and led by his truth.
The views expressed by the author are their own and are separate from those of Truth & Light Media.
Truth & Light Media is an independent, reader-supported publication that provides news and perspectives that are often under-reported or completely ignored by formal Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod channels. We sell no products or services. We do not accept advertisements. We exist to serve the pastors and people in the pews of the LCMS as we, together, seek to help fulfill our Ascended Savior’s Great Commission.