I don't understand? Concordia Portland asked to be independent?

[Richard Johnson]

If churches paid pastors what cardiologist get, we'd probably have the brightest and best people seeking that vocation.

Brightest, maybe; best, not likely.

[D. Engebretson]

Since we are talking about what is tolerated or not tolerated on a modern university/college campus today, might we consider the recent situation of Prof. Bret Winstein at Evergreen State College as a kind of case study? Based on news reports from other institutions over the last few years this incident seems to be indicative of a growing trend of intolerance for anything that does not support the 'party line' of the institution.  Prof. Weinstein was eventually forced to hold his classes off campus for fear of his own safety after refusing to participate in a "no-whites day" at the Olympia, Washington school.  There appears to have been no support for this professor from top leadership.  It appears that there is a tendency on secular campuses, at least, for a growing sense of intolerance for those who do not cooperate with whatever trendy movement is popular.  Again, take the issue with nearby Notre Dame University and the staged walk out on VP Pence as he was beginning to speak to the graduates.  If a university is about the free exchange and discussion of ideas and concepts, why this unwillingness to allow it?

[Weedon]

Consider as well the case of Anthony Esolen at Providence.

[Mark Brown]

"But what will a confessional synod need more in the days ahead?  A nice leafy grove surrounded by wealth and respectability trying to keep up appearances with worn clothes, or a slightly downscale place with a chip on its shoulder but a clear mission to take on the world in every way possible?  The second fits who we are and the times better.  The first is weeping over Babylon the fallen."

The above suggests that the St. Louis seminary under the leadership of Dale Meyer does not have a clear mission to take on the world.  IOW, does St. Louis not think globally in terms of the mission Christ entrusts to His Bride, the Church?

marie meyer

I guess I would say that St. Louis' "thinking globally" is the problem.  When I say take on the world, I mean it in the sense of "the devil, the world and our sinful nature".  Or the sense of Athanasius contra mundum.  Or Benedict. Which all go back to Jesus turning down all those kingdoms.  None of those who "took on the world" were doing so from some "thinking globally" statement.  They were doing, in their place, what they could, against the temptations to bow down to temporal power and glory.  Each was an intensely personal and time bound choice.  Like Lot and his wife fleeing Sodom.  That is something that preaches in every individual's life.

St. Louis is very H. Richard Niebuhr-esqe.  It "thinks globally" in the Christ and culture sense.  Individuals become statistics and people groups and eventually *-studies departments.  It all makes sense from a c-suite.  But it doesn't preach.  It doesn't have that kairos moment.  So it tends to be the longer path to acceptance of whatever culture you engage.     

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thanks be to God that He can make good wine from sour grapes.

Do you have any biblical reference for your statement?


Huh? Isaiah 5 has God destroying the vineyard that produced rotten grapes when God expected good grapes. God didn't make wine out of the written grapes.


Jesus made wine from water, not sour grapes.

Have you read about Paul?

Yes, he whined about Judaizers. What was sour about him? He was a good, faithful, law-keeping Pharisee. He wasn't one of the drunks or gluttons or sinners or tax collectors or prostitutes that Jesus hung around with.

[mariemeyer]

"But what will a confessional synod need more in the days ahead?  A nice leafy grove surrounded by wealth and respectability trying to keep up appearances with worn clothes, or a slightly downscale place with a chip on its shoulder but a clear mission to take on the world in every way possible?  The second fits who we are and the times better.  The first is weeping over Babylon the fallen."

The above suggests that the St. Louis seminary under the leadership of Dale Meyer does not have a clear mission to take on the world.  IOW, does St. Louis not think globally in terms of the mission Christ entrusts to His Bride, the Church?

marie meyer

I guess I would say that St. Louis' "thinking globally" is the problem.  When I say take on the world, I mean it in the sense of "the devil, the world and our sinful nature".  Or the sense of Athanasius contra mundum.  Or Benedict. Which all go back to Jesus turning down all those kingdoms.  None of those who "took on the world" were doing so from some "thinking globally" statement.  They were doing, in their place, what they could, against the temptations to bow down to temporal power and glory.  Each was an intensely personal and time bound choice.  Like Lot and his wife fleeing Sodom.  That is something that preaches in every individual's life.

St. Louis is very H. Richard Niebuhr-esqe.  It "thinks globally" in the Christ and culture sense.  Individuals become statistics and people groups and eventually *-studies departments.  It all makes sense from a c-suite.  But it doesn't preach.  It doesn't have that kairos moment.  So it tends to be the longer path to acceptance of whatever culture you engage.     

I make it a habit to read the Concordia Theological Journal and Dale Meyer's daily devotional thoughts. To suggest that he or Journal articles think of individuals as "statistics" or people groups as "studies departments" is  judgment that deserves re-thinking.

Marie Meyer

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thanks be to God that He can make good wine from sour grapes.

Do you have any biblical reference for your statement?


Huh? Isaiah 5 has God destroying the vineyard that produced rotten grapes when God expected good grapes. God didn't make wine out of the written grapes.


Jesus made wine from water, not sour grapes.

Have you read about Paul?

Which Paul are you talking about, Gan? There's bound to be at least seven Pauls according to modern scholarship. DeuteroPaul is significantly different from HexaPaul. I saw a scholar refer to DodecaPaul, but c'mon, can anyone take that seriously? I am very firm in drawing the line at SeptaPaul. We cannot be tolerant of Scriptural deviants!

Jeremy

It is clear that Luke's portrayal of Paul in Acts is a bit different from the autobiographical information in Paul's letters. Even among authentic pauline letters, there are some differences from the early letters and the later ones. Shouldn't we expect Paul to grow in faith as we expect that from all believers?


One can also denote differences in Paul depending on who is studying him. I think Luther read and interpreted Paul out of Luther's own experiences of being burdened by the Law. (It's not so clear that Paul felt that burdened.) Calvin read and interpreted Paul out of Calvin's experiences. So do we.


I have a book called: Four Views on the Apostle Paul, © 2012. There are essays byThomas Schreiner (Reformed View); Luke timothy Johnson (Catholic View); Douglas Campbell (Post New Perspective View); and Mark Nanos (Jewish View). One's own background colors the Paul we see.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If churches paid pastors what cardiologist get, we'd probably have the brightest and best people seeking that vocation.

Brightest, maybe; best, not likely.

But we could then have a more rigorous board examination and weed out the less-than-best folks as Medical Boards do. On the other hand, even the best doctors need to carry malpractice insurance. Even the best can make mistakes.

[Dave Benke]

"But what will a confessional synod need more in the days ahead?  A nice leafy grove surrounded by wealth and respectability trying to keep up appearances with worn clothes, or a slightly downscale place with a chip on its shoulder but a clear mission to take on the world in every way possible?  The second fits who we are and the times better.  The first is weeping over Babylon the fallen."

The above suggests that the St. Louis seminary under the leadership of Dale Meyer does not have a clear mission to take on the world.  IOW, does St. Louis not think globally in terms of the mission Christ entrusts to His Bride, the Church?

marie meyer

I guess I would say that St. Louis' "thinking globally" is the problem.  When I say take on the world, I mean it in the sense of "the devil, the world and our sinful nature".  Or the sense of Athanasius contra mundum.  Or Benedict. Which all go back to Jesus turning down all those kingdoms.  None of those who "took on the world" were doing so from some "thinking globally" statement.  They were doing, in their place, what they could, against the temptations to bow down to temporal power and glory.  Each was an intensely personal and time bound choice.  Like Lot and his wife fleeing Sodom.  That is something that preaches in every individual's life.

St. Louis is very H. Richard Niebuhr-esqe.  It "thinks globally" in the Christ and culture sense.  Individuals become statistics and people groups and eventually *-studies departments.  It all makes sense from a c-suite.  But it doesn't preach.  It doesn't have that kairos moment.  So it tends to be the longer path to acceptance of whatever culture you engage.     

I make it a habit to read the Concordia Theological Journal and Dale Meyer's daily devotional thoughts. To suggest that he or Journal articles think of individuals as "statistics" or people groups as "studies departments" is  judgment that deserves re-thinking.

Marie Meyer

I'm not picking up on Mark's comment either.  My reading through the years has been that St. Louis is singing "From Galilee's High Mountain", encouraging engagement with the world/culture, and Ft. Wayne is singing "The World Is Very Evil/The Times Are Waxing Late," encouraging a more counter-cultural keep your hands off posture toward the world.  To be fair, that's a generalization, but it's there (in my opinion).   Both are "global" perspectives, when it comes down to it.  One, however, can produce a bunker mentality.

Dave Benke

[Mbecker]

As to the rest of your hypothetical scenario, I can't imagine why a faculty member at VU would feel the need to publicly and forcefully deny the validity of gay marriage or the benevolence of #blacklivesmatter, declare Islam a false and destructive religion, or promote what you describe as "the idea of male/female as a binary per Genesis and not a spectrum." The one so denying, declaring, and promoting would likely be acting contrary to central values of our academic community and would come in for strong criticism on those grounds. There are compelling theological reasons, too, for why such actions would be criticized. The vocation of professor is different from that of an ideological propagandist. Such a denial and declaration and promotion would certainly be possible for any faculty member to make at VU, but I suspect most all of my colleagues recognize that their vocation of professor does not include such behavior.

Agreed. Yet the rest of this paragraph suggests otherwise.

For a professor to publicly and forcefully deny the validity of gay marriage is to engage in propaganda, an action that is not conducive to liberal learning in the give-and-take setting of a university classroom or lecture hall. For a professor to publicly and forcefully deny the benevolence of #blacklivesmatter is to engage in propaganda, an action that is not conducive to liberal learning in a university setting. For a professor to declare Islam a false and destructive religion is an act of bigotry, an action that is not conducive to liberal learning in a university setting. For a professor to promote "the idea of male/female as a binary per Genesis and not a spectrum" is to promote a confused ideological construct, the content of which is unclear and susceptible to criticism from multiple scholarly perspectives.

I cannot imagine any VU professor in the natural or social sciences or in the humanities (including philosophy and theology) engaging in the above behaviors. The role of a professor in a liberal arts college is different from engaging in such propaganda. The vocation of a professor is to ask hard questions, to examine and evaluate relevant data carefully and critically, to inform students about contrasting perspectives on the data, to help disclose prejudice and ignorance, to highlight complexity and ambiguity in the data and received traditions of scholarly inquiry, to allow for student discussion and debate, to help students think more deeply and critically about received prejudices and presuppositions, to further intellectual inquiry, to pursue elusive truths, to pass on received wisdom with humility and grace, etc.

At least this is how I have viewed my vocation as a scholar and teacher for the past quarter century.

Matt Becker

Professors certainly ought to do a good number of those things mentioned in the second paragraph (though there is that decidedly odd “…to help disclose prejudice and ignorance”; never mind that), but what is missing from that list is teaching. A professor, one hopes, professes something other than method (though getting students to learn to use these methods is certainly part of their task), and takes actual positions and conclusions having strong support from their own study, positions and conclusions drawn from the data, properly handled and considered, no matter whether those conclusions fall in step with institutional orthodoxy.

The very best teachers I have had over the years demanded rigor of us, demanded that we examine the data and follow where it goes, but were also clear that they believed that they were right on (at the least) their reading of things, and taught what they believed to be the truth concerning the topic at hand. This didn’t mean that they asked us to parrot back their opinions (those who tried that with them learned it would always backfire), but it did mean that they were open to alternate readings, even readings with which they might violently disagree, politically or otherwise, if those readings fit the data and the arguments for those differing readings didn’t fall apart under scrutiny. They were always open to be corrected, to adjust their understanding of things, to continue learning. Yet they had no fear of stating that they were right and others were wrong; the possibility of being mistaken didn’t keep them from believing that truth(s) were anything but “elusive”.

The case made here, however, is for professors to avoid defending positions unless they are in line with institutional orthodoxy. In those cases where institutional orthodoxies turn out not to be repeated, professors are found not to fit the bill because this position is propaganda, that stance is bigotry, and this other holding of theirs is promoting a confused ideological construct. No matter that they might have come to those positions, not because they fell prey to some ideology, but because that is where the data led — they’re propagandists, bigots, and confused in their thinking. Some questions cannot be asked; some territory is off-limits and must not be surveyed because the work has been already done, the map is certain, and that’s that. Full Stop. A sure sign that an ideology reigns in an institution is when there are predetermined-by-fiat outcomes for (some) paths of inquiry, and automatic judgments given for those who do not embrace those outcomes.

Sorry for the length of this reply; it’s late, and the week has been long. And +++ for Peter's post.

One of the aims of a liberal education is to liberate students from ignorance and prejudice. That aim is near the core of liberal teaching. There's nothing "odd" about it.

Please read my brief list again. It describes what is meant by the word "teaching" at a liberal-arts university. Included in that list are aspects that imply "professing," e.g., examining data carefully via lecture and discussion, informing students about contrasting perspectives on the data, passing on received wisdom, etc. I said nothing about "avoiding defending positions unless they are in line with institutional orthodoxy," whatever that phrase means. There's a big difference between "presenting a variety of perspectives and weighing their respective strengths and weaknesses" and "defending a given position as the only right and true one and denying those that are contrary to it."

All perspectives ought to be open for investigation in a university and the criteria for evaluating each of them needs to be delineated as much as possible. The latter necessity often occurs only in the course of classroom discussion. Each of the issues Peter raised is routinely examined and evaluated, even debated, in my theology classes. All perspectives on those issue are welcome in the classroom, where they will be carefully analyzed and debated, and some will perhaps even be rejected by a majority. At some point in the discussion or in the course of presenting a variety of positions on a given issue, I may also share my own perspective and why I hold it, but in doing so I will try to be very careful so as not to shut down the learning process. This concern is particularly important in the humanities (which includes religious studies and theology), where many issues and questions do not lead to easy "black-and-white," true/false answers. An openness to students and their varying perspectives is crucial for professors in these fields of study. Of course my students know or learn on Day One that I am a former LCMS pastor and practicing ELCA Christian, so they have a hunch about many of my views already. No need to hit them over the head "publicly and forcefully."

Matt Becker

[Dave Likeness]

There is a bit of rivalry between the Seminary in St. Louis and the Seminary in Fort Wayne.
For the most part it has been a friendly one rather than a hostile one.  Today, both are
enduring declining enrollment.   This roller coaster has seen plenty of ups and downs.
As previously stated the Springfield/Fort Wayne campus was at one time intended for
second career students, while the St. Louis Seminary was for the men who went through
the "System."  Today, both seminaries are competing for the same students and have
similar faculties.   

What are the deciding factors to pick one seminary over the other in the 21st century?
You would have to ask those who will be First Year Seminarians next September.  My
guess is that there is not a simple answer, but rather a complex answer based on
personal preferences and individual needs.

[Dave Benke]

There is a bit of rivalry between the Seminary in St. Louis and the Seminary in Fort Wayne.
For the most part it has been a friendly one rather than a hostile one.  Today, both are
enduring declining enrollment.   This roller coaster has seen plenty of ups and downs.
As previously stated the Springfield/Fort Wayne campus was at one time intended for
second career students, while the St. Louis Seminary was for the men who went through
the "System."  Today, both seminaries are competing for the same students and have
similar faculties.   

What are the deciding factors to pick one seminary over the other in the 21st century?
You would have to ask those who will be First Year Seminarians next September.  My
guess is that there is not a simple answer, but rather a complex answer based on
personal preferences and individual needs.

Back in the day the rivalry took place in the sports arena, when there were more "robust" enrollments.  In football, each seminary's intramural all-stars would meet for the annual flag football tussle.  Our captain one year was Jon Wuerffel.  We won decisively.  You may have heard of Jon's son, Danny, who won the Heisman in 1996.  In hoops, the varsities met for a time, and then didn't for a time, because there was too great a differential between the two programs.  One of our Atlantic District pastors emeritus, Jim Zwernemann, holds the all-time St. Louis scoring record, gained at the expense of the Springfield Seminary.  By my time, our intramural all-stars took on their varsity.  Still no contest.

Dave Benke

[Voelker]

I said nothing about "avoiding defending positions unless they are in line with institutional orthodoxy," whatever that phrase means.

And here we get to the heart of the problem: it is clear that your ideological blinkers are strong and effective. Were they not, that phrase would be clear to you as a high-sky day, and that this really is your position. The paragraph with which I began ("As to the rest of your hypothetical scenario...") clearly delineates some aspects of Valpo's institutional orthodoxy, things not to be said, questioned, or perhaps even thought. Peter is entirely right: for you, things not in line with institutional orthodoxies are heresies, things which are unable to be thought, and you cannot for a moment understand ("I can't imagine") how anyone might agree with or hold them, because they are not Right Thought — there is something wrong with someone spouting them, for to hold them is to be a propagandist, a bigot, or mentally impaired. This is not how the Academy has traditionally functioned, but it is how dissidents were dealt with under Stalin's heirs.

Your fear of "shut[ting] down the learning process" leaves your students with method, and nothing more. A useful method, to be sure — differing positions should be examined and investigated, and learning to deal critically and logically with texts, facts, and arguments is essential — but one that does not give the tools to do more than agree that one take on a matter is less strong than some others. What is missing here is an understanding that perspectives are merely another piece of data, and have no value in and of themselves except as another angle from which to view something; while in some cases we might not be able to see clearly just what the truth of something is (in the "black-and-white" sense), we can substantially narrow things down after subtracting, among other things, the prejudices that those differing perspectives bring to the table. If all you have or end up with are "perspectives" and "views"...then there's no point in helping your students examine varying perspectives, unless your job is simply to help students practice proper method. if that's the case, then by all means, keep at it.

[Matt Staneck]

"But what will a confessional synod need more in the days ahead?  A nice leafy grove surrounded by wealth and respectability trying to keep up appearances with worn clothes, or a slightly downscale place with a chip on its shoulder but a clear mission to take on the world in every way possible?  The second fits who we are and the times better.  The first is weeping over Babylon the fallen."

The above suggests that the St. Louis seminary under the leadership of Dale Meyer does not have a clear mission to take on the world.  IOW, does St. Louis not think globally in terms of the mission Christ entrusts to His Bride, the Church?

marie meyer

I guess I would say that St. Louis' "thinking globally" is the problem.  When I say take on the world, I mean it in the sense of "the devil, the world and our sinful nature".  Or the sense of Athanasius contra mundum.  Or Benedict. Which all go back to Jesus turning down all those kingdoms.  None of those who "took on the world" were doing so from some "thinking globally" statement.  They were doing, in their place, what they could, against the temptations to bow down to temporal power and glory.  Each was an intensely personal and time bound choice.  Like Lot and his wife fleeing Sodom.  That is something that preaches in every individual's life.

St. Louis is very H. Richard Niebuhr-esqe.  It "thinks globally" in the Christ and culture sense.  Individuals become statistics and people groups and eventually *-studies departments.  It all makes sense from a c-suite.  But it doesn't preach.  It doesn't have that kairos moment.  So it tends to be the longer path to acceptance of whatever culture you engage.     

This comment is way off.

M. Staneck

[Voelker]

"But what will a confessional synod need more in the days ahead?  A nice leafy grove surrounded by wealth and respectability trying to keep up appearances with worn clothes, or a slightly downscale place with a chip on its shoulder but a clear mission to take on the world in every way possible?  The second fits who we are and the times better.  The first is weeping over Babylon the fallen."

The above suggests that the St. Louis seminary under the leadership of Dale Meyer does not have a clear mission to take on the world.  IOW, does St. Louis not think globally in terms of the mission Christ entrusts to His Bride, the Church?

marie meyer

I guess I would say that St. Louis' "thinking globally" is the problem.  When I say take on the world, I mean it in the sense of "the devil, the world and our sinful nature".  Or the sense of Athanasius contra mundum.  Or Benedict. Which all go back to Jesus turning down all those kingdoms.  None of those who "took on the world" were doing so from some "thinking globally" statement.  They were doing, in their place, what they could, against the temptations to bow down to temporal power and glory.  Each was an intensely personal and time bound choice.  Like Lot and his wife fleeing Sodom.  That is something that preaches in every individual's life.

St. Louis is very H. Richard Niebuhr-esqe.  It "thinks globally" in the Christ and culture sense.  Individuals become statistics and people groups and eventually *-studies departments.  It all makes sense from a c-suite.  But it doesn't preach.  It doesn't have that kairos moment.  So it tends to be the longer path to acceptance of whatever culture you engage.     

This comment is way off.

M. Staneck

Seconded.