Is the SMP a Victim of Its Own Success?: An SMP Pastor’s Response to the New Policy Requirements
- Rev. Dr. Chris Holder
- 2 hours ago
- 7 min read
On November 12, 2025, the Pastor Formation Committee of the LCMS released new Policy Requirements for the SMP (Specific Ministry Pastor) program. These new requirements have created a bit of a stir as the LCMS continues to address the challenges facing both a shortage of pastors and a variety of approaches on how to best move forward. Having gone through SMP myself, but also having completed both Masters and Doctor of Ministry degrees, I believe that I may offer some unique perspectives to this conversation. As a part of the ULC Team, I also believe strongly that raising up future leaders for the church, including pastors, in a local church context is not just an option, but essential for the long term viability of the church in general and our own LCMS body.
With that in mind, I can’t help but be a bit baffled and even disappointed by these new policy requirements. Yet, am I surprised? Sadly not, for this is the direction things have been going for a while now. There is a lot to unpack in both the Premises and Policy Requirements laid out here, and several others have already responded to them. Therefore, I will focus my response as a reflection on the question in the title above and only touch on a few specific points from the document itself.
Is the SMP a victim of its own success? Or to put it another way, is the SMP program working as an effective tool in training pastors and filling pulpits (often some of the most difficult ones to fill)? The overall tone of the document is not particularly positive or affirming of the SMP Program, or the many SMP pastors serving within the LCMS. For example, Premise 3 includes the phrases “has served the church well” and “we thank God for the pastors formed though our SMP programs and regard them with honor as called and ordained servants of Jesus Christ conducting valid ministry.” If this is the case, why is there a need to limit the scope, usage of and access to the SMP program, especially when SMP pastors are often serving in some of the most difficult pulpits to fill?
The only conclusion I can come up with based on this document is that there is a feeling the SMP program has become too effective—again a victim of its own success. Therefore, it needs to be scaled back so that other programs, namely the residential M.Div, can increase with less “competition.” The assumption here being that we have too many people going through SMP at the expense of the residential M.Div. Having gone through the SMP program myself, this seems to me to be a false assumption. If anything, limiting access to SMP will simply discourage many from the pastoral ministry altogether or even encourage others to serve in another Confessional Lutheran Church body that does not have the same limitations on online and distance pastoral formation and education.
If the primary goal of our seminaries is to prepare men for pastoral ministry in the LCMS—a church body that desperately needs more pastors in all contexts, not just “smaller” churches—these new policies feel a bit like we are “biting off our nose to spite our face.” The trend across church bodies is that people are entering the pastoral ministry at a later age and the “demand” for distance and online theological education is on an upward trajectory. For example, the school at which I completed my D.Min—Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary—sold off a portion of their campus a couple of years ago. They did this despite the fact that their overall enrollment continues to increase. What isn’t increasing is the enrollment in their residential programs, so they have pivoted to more hybrid, distant, and cohort based models, not unlike SMP. So, if the concern is that the SMP is not robust enough, it would make much more sense to figure out ways to expand it, add more classes, and make the bridge to general pastor or an M.Div less clunky and more cost-effective. By putting most of their eggs in the residential M.Div basket, our seminaries are rejecting their greatest opportunity to add students preparing for pastoral ministry within our church body.
Premise 4 states, “The intention in creating the SMP program was not that it become a preferred or prevalent route for pastoral preparation, given its more limited scope.” This same sentiment is echoed in Premise 12, “the SMP route should not be seen as a ‘choice among route-to-ordinations alternatives.’” Yet, it also affirms in Premise 5 that “currently and for the foreseeable future, the LCMS is facing a shortage of pastors.” In this same premise, an SMP pastor is touted as “one among numerous good options for addressing the need for a pastor in certain small congregations.” Several other options are listed for smaller congregations, and here I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for smaller churches and that a number of options should be considered. However, the fact that other options should be considered and in many cases implemented should not in itself decrease the need for SMP pastors and justify limiting its usage. Over half of the LCMS congregations have an average worship attendance in the 50s or below. The vast majority of these churches either don’t have a pastor and/or are already struggling to support a full-time pastor. While SMP is not the only solution to this reality, a church using the SMP route to raise up their own—often bi or co-vocational—pastor is the most viable option available.
Premise 7 claims that “the proportion of men completing the most comprehensive program of pastoral preparation (M.Div at one of the two Synod seminaries) matters.” A proportionally larger number of pastors receiving less theological and biblical preparation is cited as the concern here, with the churches scriptural confession and confidence at risk. There seems to be a fear here that pastors having gone through the SMP program are significantly more likely to preach and teach sound biblical and confessional doctrine. While it is true that SMP students do not receive as much training in biblical, theological, and the Lutheran confession disciplines, this premise presumes that this will lead to a weaker overall confession of the LCMS. However, no evidence of SMP Pastors preaching and teaching false or questionable doctrine at a significant rate, say more than the residential M.Div students, is offered here. If this is truly a concern, then why not just make the SMP program more rigorous and comprehensive rather than limit it?
Premise 11 states that “many SMP applications arrive to the seminaries fully completed, with the endorsement of a congregation and their district president included, before any contact or conversation has occurred between the student and the seminary.” Here I can appreciate the desire for the seminaries to be involved earlier in the discernment process of the student. However, this document also makes it abundantly clear that the residential M.Div is the prescribed preference of the seminaries. So, I have concern that the seminaries can be objective here, as they already have a built-in bias to prop up one of their own programs or route over the others. Here, it seems the desire is to get prospective students in contact with the seminary sooner so that they might be more easily persuaded to the program of the seminary’s preference over what might actually be the best for the student and their current ministry context. Further, I believe that in most situations, the local ministry context, pastor, circuit, and district are better suited to help a student discern their calling and possible paths of study. This is not to say that the seminaries shouldn’t be involved at all—they should be of course. However, not at the expense of those in closest proximity to the student.
Let me conclude with these two thoughts. First of all, the idea that the training and mentoring of SMP pastors as a time commitment is a “supervisory burden” from Premise 10 might be the most short-sighted part of the entire document. This has been stated by others, so I will be brief here. All pastors in training need supervision, this includes residential students that are field workers and vicars. The ongoing requirement of the supervision of SMP pastors, I think, is being greatly overstated here. An SMP pastor after four years of weekly engagement with a mentor pastor does not require nearly the same oversight after. Furthermore, all pastors benefit from accountability and mutual encouragement. Isn’t this why we have circuits and circuit visitors? In Premise 16, we read, “the ‘specific ministry’ (specialization) for which an SMP student prepares is, in fact, the context of their current place/context of ministry.” The curriculum of SMP is 16 prescribed classes that all students take. They are not even chosen from a prescribed list of options. They are just listed by the student in the application. If the specific ministry is contextual and under the direction of a mentor pastor, it should be fairly easy for an SMP pastor to learn another specific ministry under the dissection of another pastor. The idea that an SMP pastor can only serve in narrowly defined roles based on what was listed when they first applied to the program is very shortsighted and unnecessary.
The SMP has been a blessing to the LCMS and the many churches that have been served by SMP pastors. Yet, it seems that our seminaries have created a program so successful that it now has become a threat and needs to be limited in scope and accessibility. It has become a victim of its own success! This represents a scarcity instead of an abundance mentality. I do believe that the PFC has the best of intentions regarding providing our church with the best possible training for pastors. However, I believe that this is a step backward not forward. I humbly request that these new requirements be reconsidered and that current pastors in the field, including SMP pastors, be invited to participate in this conversation more fully.
In HIS service,
Chris