Pastor or Teacher?

An interesting question! Pastor or Principal? Are they separate vocations?

My answer is shaped by the fact that I entered seminary with an undergraduate education degree and taught in various grades 7-12 during the seminary years. Just before arriving at my first call (mid-1970′s), as an associate pastor, the principal at that church resigned and they asked (called) me to serve also as “acting principal.” 12 years later, the “acting” had been dropped and I was juggling grades 7-8, principal, and somewhat diminished pastoral roles. I also had picked up a Masters in Ed. Admin.

I find it difficult to imagine being a principal without the depth of theological preparation, or for that matter, being a pastor without the experience with the classroom and with families from the viewpoint of the classroom.

I have been told many times (whether it is correct I do not know) that in Synodical Conference circles, particularly, LCMS, a man’s first call was often as assistant pastor and often the assistant pastor was expected to serve as a teacher (less often principal) in the school. I have a number for colleagues older than myself who started out this way.

As we in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod are opening schools on the classical Lutheran model we are in need of educators with a deep theological insight, administrative ability, and the ability to teach one of the classical languages. It is only reasonable to look to the seminary where we have people who meet all those requirements.

You may wish to make the argument that Pastor and principal or principal-teacher are two different vocations as Paul’s vocations as tentmaker and apostle. We all have more than one vocation, after all.

I believe that there are some who are uniquely qualified to serve in the vocation of pastor, whose oversight includes the whole flock, including the school.

The most practical problem, however, is time. Such tasks as athletic coordination, plant supervision, scheduling, and buses can be handled by a capable administrative assistant.

That’s enough, I am interested in reading any responses.

I’m new to the Lutheran scene, so maybe I’m missing something, but it seems the role of principal is very significantly different from that of a pastor. There is some overlap. But a principal has to know: how to manage an educational workforce; how to construct and manage an academically sound curriculum; how to handle discipline problems among the students; how to manage the school budget; how to create an effective work environment for teachers; what the latest theories and approaches to teaching and learning are and how they all compare to each other; and so forth. And s/he has to be able to do all this from a distinctly Christian point of view.

It’s a highly technical job that requires a lot of specialized training and smarts to do. You can’t just plug in a pastor and expect him to be an effective principal, or vice versa. The same could really be said for teachers; some teachers would make horrible principals. So I’m not sure why the original choice — whether to call a pastor or a teacher to be the principal — is even in play, unless in this particular situation the congregation has two people specifically in mind, one a pastor and the other a teacher, and is trying to make up their minds.

Also, couldn’t the principal of a Lutheran school be female? Whereas not so for pastors?

I’d vote simply to pick the best qualified candidate based on the specifications of the job. Whether they are a pastor on the one hand or a teacher on the other is not the most relevant thing — what does their resume say?

In summary, affairs of the church should be organized always so that the work of the pastor is clearly at the center of the concentric circles of third article at the center, proclaiming the second article, which moves christians to be in the world bearing first article gifts.

This is not an either or choice, it is both/and. and it is not so much

Pastors can do other things as fellow christians. they can be church trash collectors, school principals, janitors, and they often are all these things and more. It’s all good.

But as set-apart pastors. called and ordained. they are acting outside of their office by doing these very holy things. they ARE doing holy orders by doing the trash collection or as principals.

but like a federal judge taking out the trash as part of one of his vocations for his family at home, he is not acting officially in his office in so doing. His charter, as pastor, is not there. Just as when a pastor utters advice , Joel osteen style, on family relationships or psychology, he is doing a holy work and may be filling a vocational need to do so, but he is acting UTTERLY outside of his charter as a pastor.

The only problem with this is that his office is unique to the world offering that one thing needful that NOONE else is set apart and called to offer. It is a shame to distract and dilute that mission when there is any other way to do things.

Let Christ increase I say, and let us decrease. God WILL find a way to take care of first article needs without pastors leading the charge to do that.

We must resist, at all costs, the “professionalization” of pastors.

Yes, you heard that right. the christian school is not a missionary arm of the church.

It is first article. not second or third article. (for those Non-lutherans here we are talking about the 3 sections or articles of the apostles creed, father, son and holy spirit, as explained in Dr Martin Luther’s small catechism. google it!)

I am an accountant, IT professional, and now real estate and law school student. As a christian, these vocations now are “missionary efforts.” sure. but not strictly or properly speaking. I bring sweet Jesus into my vocations, and from there I bring others to my pastor and so bring them to Jesus. THERE is where the real missionary work gets done. I am, or rather that thing called the Holy Spirit in me, the leaven in the dough. That thing that puts Christ into the world. But what i do is STILL FIRST article gift to the world.

The problem here is that Lutherans tend to systematize and categorize and classify things like good Joimans are wont to do. And then get all confused when there is interplay and bleeding of function between the arbitrary classifications they set up. “Can pastors be teachers too? hmmm part of pastoring involves teaching… so…..”

black cannot be white and grey does not exist.

This condition exists until you put Christ at the very center and make Him all in all, and then everything becomes “ordered” as it should be and all things become truly free and start to look like Gospel and not law.

This confuses our old adam , who wants pharisaic rules and not true morality, and brings holy pleasure and certainty in seeming chaos to our new adam.

We can then relax and allow diversity of expression while being sure and certain what the order needs to look like and striving towards that orientation as human compasses that point and give comfort of direction and orientation but force no one to go where we point.

Pastors can pick up the trash, and saints can sin, and the LC-MS can burn money by setting it ABLAZE ™ and we can relax in the comfort of knowing that this is only a temporary situation. Jesus will resolve all things sweetly and by grace.

And maybe some of the chaos will, if it be His will, be resolved here and now, but all will be subsumed to His holy will. That will was to , for us men and for our salvation, come down from heaven, and save us.

This remains the complete expression of His will towards sinful mankind.

Meanwhile we get to be passive martyrs (holy witnesses), The true mirror image of jihadists. Ever pointing to the Life of the World. The Light the Darkness could not overcome.

May Holy Ordination always be 200 proof and not koolaid or a drink with an umbrella in it pleasing to men and what we think will work or what is right. Amen.

Put Jesus at the heart and center and all becomes clear even and especially when our man made cuisinart theology of slicing and dicing becomes a confused salad.

It grieves me that LC-MS men sometimes refer to the WELS position as the “functional view of the ministry”. This frames the issue wrongly, and so demarcates the area of disagreement wrongly.

The issue IS as to what is the proper “function” of the holy ministry. Function is probably not a good word though because it conjure up issues of form and not just function in our culture.

The better words in english would be office, or commission, or order, or charge.

The concept of “office” seems to be lost to us in the church now though, even though it is clear as to the “office” of judge or president or governor under a constitutional law (I know some would argue even that, but I think the illustration is still clear.)

Sorry for the long windedness and multiple postings, but I was raised in the WELS and was always confused reading missouri and wisconsin bounce back and forth on this. Both sides could and did lapse into legalisms. I hope that a pastor out there will put this all down, but so far I have not seen things presented this way except by my former pastor of 15 years who is LC-MS. and he has not published anything on this yet.

missouri tries to preserve the doctrine of the public ministry by overstatement and making it “special” where it is not. (just like some pastors, to make private confession compelling and special assert that the forgiveness offered there is different than one offered in other forms.)

Wisconsin correctly objects to this, but then bases their teaching on everthing that happens in an organization of believers. “believers are church.” sums their doctrine. They atomize and so can only then have order through organizational imperatives and legalisms.

True Missouri doctrine starts with Christ, by means of the word and sacraments and believers ORDERED around that.

No legalisms necessary to produce order. and the flexibility wisconsin aims for in ministry is granted in a gospel way. Can a pastor be a teacher or a janitor as well. yes! Should he be? depends. Ideally no, but we have grace to deal grace in the non-ideal.

The expression of ministry can be manifested in great diversity with no contention for who has authority to do what.

The “to do ” part is clear. The lines and delimits of authority are clear in the office.”

A principal is called to be the teachers’ teacher and the leader of the entire school.

A teacher is trained and called to teach, not necessarily lead (except the classroom he/she is in front of).

Perhaps I’d call a teacher who has gone on to earn a degree in school administration, but not just a teacher. I say this not just as a matter of fact, but from experience. As the founder and president of a charter school in Michigan who has made the mistake twice of assuming a teacher can naturally walk into the job of administrator. It never worked out.

A pastor, on the other hand, is called both to lead and teach, and can do both well. He knows how to lead (shepherd), and with a right application of law and gospel. But if a pastor is not also a good teacher, he should never have been ordained.

2 Timothy 2:24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach,…

Since this is a parochial school, I think it’s a no-brainer to hire a pastor as the principal if at all possible.

Teresa,

The question in Dr. Veith’s original post is NOT whether to have a principal or a pastor. The congregation already has a pastor and wants to hire a principal for their school. The question is: based upon the doctrine of vocation, who would make a better principal for a parochial school, a pastor or a classroom teacher?

Your answer addresses an important follow-up question not yet stated. That is, if the principal is also an ordained pastor, to what degree, if any, should he share in the pastoral duties of the congregation? That would be a matter to address in the call document.

Frank,
I couldn’t begin to answer your every point, so let me just observe that your dependance upon categories seems to amount to compartmentalization. We all have several, even many, vocations; we do not inhabit boxes. Though it surely needs emphasis in our day, the idea that a pastor is only to preside at the Divine Service is foreign to the Scriptures.

Schools not for outreach?! Schools only “first article”?! Balderdash!

Schools are the field of battle!
The enemy brings believing children into his schools to subvert their faith. His servants even have “integrated math” to indoctrinate the children in a damnable philosophy. Why exactly shall we abandon the educational field to him, and not speak to the lost also in our schools?

BTW Frank, yes I am THE Ed Bryant, FWIW.

Dr. Veith; true that there are principals, but are they not supervised by Wilson?

That said, the historic roots of the “principal” is that of the “principal teacher.” More or less, they led by example more than by fiat–and again, they’ve got (or should have) the teaching skills also required for the pastorate. Also, in a Christian school, I’d suggest they also ought to have a lot of the character traits required for being a deacon or elder, though in schools I’d make an exception on the “male only” rule.

So where they differ, IMO, is in whether they feel called to preach the Gospel, or to teach academic subjects, not in basic aptitudes.

“Pastors have the best aptitude for being the administrators of what a Lutheran school’s purpose should be. Perhaps one should first ask what that purpose is, but that was not the question either.”
I’m a pastor and I hate administration, and don’t feel overly qualified for it. Oversight maybe. But I think this is the whole reason behind the apostles electing deacons to wait tables. Pastors will need to know what is going on in a school. Pastors will even have to be leaders and visionaries for the school. But the day to day administration, maybe that ought be left to someone who isn’t supposed to devote his time to prayer and the word.

Right, Robert, I’m sure Doug Wilson has oversight, and certainly the pastor of the parish should have oversight over the school, especially in its theological teachings. But Doug leaves the complicated day-to-day administration of the institution to others, leaving him time for his ministerial duties. That strikes me as a good idea.

Ed Bryant: I MEANT to say that ” I think that we probably agree actually” and no that was not a freudian slip. hehehehehe.

Jim,
I’m not sure that you question quite fits here. As we are only talking about who would best be suited as principal of a School.
However you are right that the parents are given the responsibility for the raising and educating of children. That said it is nowhere forbidden for parents to hire others to help with these tasks. That is where schools (public or private) come in. This in no way however relieves the parents of their responsibilities, just helps them do a better job of it.

Jim,
I don’t see where Veith presumes the church “should” run a school. only that the Church is running a school, something that is in there freedom to do.
We Lutherans believe that if the Bible is silent on a subject, we are free to do or not to do, as we see fit.
Nowehre do we see Churches commanded to run schools, yet no where do we see churches forbidden to run schools. Therefore we think it is a good a beneficial thing for a Church to do this if they can, but don’t have to feel guilty about not doing it.
However, teahcers are menitoned often in the New Testament. For instance, 1Cor 12:28,29, Eph. 4:11. It maybe up for debate who they are teaching, and what they teach, but can you rule out that they are teaching children?
Priests in the Old Testament also are commanded to teach, Lev. 10:11.

“This in no way however relieves the parents of their responsibilities, just helps them do a better job of it.”

…or a WORSE job of it, depending upon the parents and depending upon the school.

I think Jim has presented a good question worthy of our attention, especially those who delegate their parental responsibilities automatically and without adequate cause.

We live in a sinful world, and so institutions are sometimes helpful in filling in the gaps of what we sinners fail to do and achieve. However, I would recommend that we all challenge our presumptions on the purpose of education, especially public education. For this reason, I praise Jim’s questions here.

Consider this quote from a new book published by CPH this year:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his Letters and Papers from Prison, observed that “man had come of age” in which the “religious hypothesis” is no longer needed by man since he can get along very well without it. Bonhoeffer observed that, “as people have to use ‘god’ as an explanation less and less and have to call on ‘god’ for help less and less, this ‘god’ is being edged out of the world, to the periphery of people’s conscious world.”

This displacement of the “religious hypothesis” is promoted through what Leslie Newbigin calls the bilingual nature of education. For most of our early lives, through the accepted systems of public education, we have been trained to use a language that claims to make sense of the world without the hypothesis of God. For an hour or two on Sunday mornings, we use the other language, the language of the Bible, but for the rest of the week we use the language imposed by the occupying power.

Worldviews: A Christian Response to Religious Pluralism
by Dr. Anthony J. Steinbronn
CPH 2007

Erich,
Though I agree this is a topic worthy of discussion. I would like to point out that the topic started out as to who should be called to be a principal of a Lutheran, and therefore Christian, School.
I would also like to ask is it sinful to send your kids to school even public school? It is afterall the law these days. Yes, you can homeschool, but that has its pros and cons. Soem parents do really well at it, where others would be better off sending their kids to public schools.

Theresa K. and Frank,
For many years now I have recommended that ALL students pay full cost-of-instruction tuition. Discounts can then be specifically applied from funds available. It has to do with maintaining sustainable schools with a strong business plan (no, that doesn’t mean the church is a business.)

I have never had a problem telling parents that we are intent upon converting the little pagans they send to us and on top of that requiring the parents to attend classes on what we believe and teach. I might say it a bit more tactfully, but if they are not believers, the parents cannot fathom that the most important thing about the schoole is The Faith rather than the strictly educational enterprise. They therefore sign up confident that they are immune from anything we might say. Then the Holy Spirit works through the word…

It is a whole other topic, but let me say that generally Lutherans to a pretty poor job of actually talking to “others.” The school is one venue in which it can be done, but there must also be others.

Frank, I don’t know how to contact you on line. If I put up an email some ‘bot would suck it up and I would be buried in spam. Perhaps you can leave a message at http://www.sainttimothy.org and I can get back to you.

Jim (and Bror) and Erich,

I agree that the church school is something done in Christian liberty. The existence of the synagogue schools dating before the time of Christ shows that beleivers in every age have seen the church working to assist parents in carrying out Deut. 6:4

Jim, you make an important point in emphasizing parental responsibility. In parochial schools we are obliged to clearly communicate to parents what we do so that they can determine if we really are assisting them as they want us to. Also in parochial schools we must constantly remind one another that we serve the parents. If we don’t we are complicit in undermining the God-given responsibilities of parents. I think that such responsibilities are among the “unalienables” mentioned in the founding documents, though it would be hard to get that idea into a court any more.

Ponder the significance of the change in laws from, “Parents must see that their children are educated” to “Parents must put their children in school.” That shift occurred in the latter half of the 19th Century and was catastrophic.