Seminaries and the Early Church: A Response

THE FOLLOWING IS A RESPONSE TO A GOTTESDIENST BLOG FOUND HERE: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/2025/3/7/seminaries-and-the-early-church. Be sure to check them out, and if you’re reading from Gottesdienst, we would love to talk with you.  Your voice is really important in our church body and at the ULC we believe that we’re better talking and working together.

The call to pastoral ministry is sacred, requiring careful preparation, theological depth, and a commitment to serving Christ’s church. The blog post rightly emphasizes the seriousness of the pastoral office and the need for well-formed pastors. However, it assumes that a single, long academic process is the only faithful way to prepare men for ministry. While rigorous theological education is vital, history and Scripture show that pastoral formation has never been limited to one method.

The early church was deeply concerned with doctrine and training faithful leaders, yet it did not require a fixed, institutionalized process. Instead, pastoral preparation took place within the life of the church, shaped by mentorship, community recognition, and careful instruction in the Scriptures. The assumption that a modern seminary model is the only legitimate way to form pastors does not fully align with the witness of the early church or the breadth of Lutheran history.

While a strong foundation in theology is necessary, the way this formation takes place should be open to consideration. We must be careful not to assume that length of study always correlates with pastoral preparedness, nor that formal seminary training is the only way to ensure faithful doctrine. A more historically grounded approach recognizes that theological education can take multiple forms while still maintaining doctrinal integrity.

Early Church Training and the Need for Context

The Didache (c. 1st century), one of the earliest church manuals, provides insight into the training of leaders in the first Christian communities. It emphasizes the transmission of the apostolic teaching but does not prescribe a standardized, lengthy academic training model. Instead, elders and bishops were appointed within communities based on their faithfulness to doctrine and their ability to shepherd the flock (Didache 15:1-2). This suggests that early churches raised up leaders from within their own communities rather than requiring years of study in a separate institution.

Similarly, Irenaeus, writing in Against Heresies (c. 180 AD), describes how the apostolic churches ensured sound doctrine through the training of bishops and presbyters. He commends churches that maintained the faith through apostolic succession but does not argue that this required a uniform educational path. Instead, he emphasizes the necessity of leaders who are steeped in the teachings of Christ and the apostles, trained in the context of their own congregations (AH 3.3.1).

The Dangers of Over-Reliance on a Single Model

The blog post argues that we should not be “too hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Tim. 5:22), which is certainly wise counsel. However, it does not follow that the only way to guard against this is through an extended residential seminary program. The early church never assumed that academic rigor alone made a pastor; rather, the character, faithfulness, and doctrinal soundness of a man were central. Tertullian (Prescription Against Heretics, 41) warns that excessive intellectualism can sometimes lead to pride and heresy rather than faithfulness. The church fathers understood that knowledge must be paired with practical ministry experience and spiritual maturity, something best developed in the church itself.

The LCMS and the Role of Seminaries in Theological Drift

The blog post assumes that seminaries are the primary safeguard against false teaching and doctrinal drift. However, in the history of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), our seminaries have often been the very institutions that introduced theological instability. The most notable example of this is the Seminex controversy and the 1974 walkout at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. The crisis did not arise from a lack of formal education but rather from the theological drift within the seminary itself, where professors trained in higher criticism led students toward a departure from biblical inerrancy. It was not local congregations or alternative training models that caused the disruption, but rather a seminary that had lost its theological moorings.

Historically, the LCMS did not rely solely on a single academic model for training pastors. In fact, C.F.W. Walther’s original vision for pastoral education included the practical seminary, which trained pastors in a hands-on, mentorship-based format. This was distinct from the classical seminary model and ensured that pastors were not only well-versed in theology but also well-equipped for the realities of congregational life. Yet today, the LCMS has abandoned this model. 

The danger is not in having strong theological education, but in assuming that seminaries are immune to theological drift. If history is any guide, we should be just as concerned about seminaries losing their doctrinal fidelity as we are about alternative paths to ministry. A truly robust approach to pastoral formation must include both doctrinal education and a deep, practical connection to the church—something our synod has not fully recovered in the wake of the practical seminary’s disappearance.

Historical and Global Precedents for Varied Pastoral Formation

The post rightly notes the examples of Tanzania, Siberia, and other places where seminaries are growing. However, the Lutheran Church in Tanzania, for instance, does not merely replicate the Western residential seminary model. Instead, it raises up pastors through local mentorship and training within their home contexts, allowing them to serve as they learn. Their system resembles the catechetical schools of Alexandria and Antioch, where future bishops like Athanasius were trained not in a detached academic setting, but within the very communities they would later serve. https://missioncentral.us/lceash/

Here is a direct quote from their homepage:

The Lutheran Church of East Africa has established St. Peter’s Seminary in the town of Himo, Tanzania to serve their conservative church. This small school provides instruction to a cohort of up to fifteen students in a four-year course leading to their ordination in the LCEA. The cohort studies all the way through the course to graduation before another intake of students is done. Seminary students are able to study at St. Peter’s and remain close to home and their home congregations where they are likely already serving as lay leaders. Supporting this seminary allows the church to provide ordained servants to their congregations across Tanzania.

If the LCMS promotes these growing international conservative Lutheran bodies, why would we not also consider their adaptive approach to contextual leadership formation? 

Augustine, writing in On Christian Doctrine (IV.15), acknowledges that some leaders are trained in rhetoric and philosophy, but he also makes space for those whom the Holy Spirit calls and equips through other means. If the early church and the global church today recognize this reality, why should we be resistant to considering different approaches to formation?

Faithfulness in Pastoral Preparation

The blog post warns against hasty ordination, but it conflates flexibility in training with lack of preparation. The truth is, a long academic process does not necessarily prevent unpreparedness. Many well-educated clergy have faltered, while many pastors trained in local settings have been faithful unto death. The early church relied on mentorship, community affirmation, and practical engagement in ministry. It was a process deeply embedded in the life of the church, not an isolated intellectual pursuit.

Yes, we need theological education. Yes, we must guard against false teaching. But we must also recognize that strong pastoral formation does not require a singular approach. The church throughout history has trained its pastors in a variety of ways while remaining faithful to Scripture and doctrine. Rather than dismissing different models outright, we should carefully consider how best to equip men for ministry in a way that upholds both theological depth and pastoral readiness.

Finally, this is an important conversation for the future of the church. We’d love to continue the discussion with Dr. Peter Scaer and anyone else who wants to think critically about pastoral formation in the LCMS. Peter, if you’re reading this, you’re welcome to come chat with us—we’d love to hear your thoughts or have you on a podcast.

uniteleadership.org

---