Funny thing about the methodology stuff... the people I know who are reading the current trend in church growth and development (people in my own circuit) did not ever read the Lutheran dogmaticians so it is highly unlikely that they are reading the methodology stuff. They are not reading this stuff critically but, in many cases, because they are desperate to grow the church and they are ready to do whatever they think will make for quick, measurable growth. I am not faulting their desire -- does anyone on this forum NOT want the church to grow? What I am faulting is that they have read just enough Lutheran doctrine to be dangerous -- they have the pat phrases (law/Gospel, means of grace, etc.) but they don't know what these mean or how to apply them. When we discuss these and I bring up questions, inevitably I hear "I never thought of that before..." This does not prevent them from using it because they figure if they get the sermon right, it makes up for everything else being wrong. So where is the critical thinking here?
I was at the Senior College at the very time of the split and found it to be overall supportive of the Seminex direction. I did not encounter direct things in class but unmistakable subtleties. At the same time, what I did encounter there was a tremendous pressure to think, to read, to push yourself by having the original sources and not content with a cursory knowledge and shallow conclusions. This itself was one of the great blessings of CSC -- and it cannot be diminished even though it was obvious where the sentiments of the faculty lie...