From "Forum Letter" December, 2004
A number of correspondents have observed that our article about Luther Seminary and one of its internship assignments made little mention of the role the synodical candidacy committee may have played in approving the student in question (“Learning Deficiencies at Luther,” FL:33:10 ).
Naturally, there is a reason for this. The seminary official most responsible for the internship declined to tell us which candidacy committee was involved, and when we did find out — from another seminary official — it was too late to incorporate it into the story. Should you wonder, the committee is the Intersynodical Candidacy Committee serving, among other places, the Greater Milwaukee Synod, apparently this intern’s home synod. But knowing that, as we found out, changes little.
Among our correspondents were those who would excuse the seminary and scapegoat the candidacy committee. It was suggested to us that once the committee has endorsed a seminarian for internship, the only possible reason a seminary might deny it would be the lack of an available site.
Not quite. We will concede the candidacy committee itself bears a good deal of the responsibility, but it is not the chief culprit in this business. Even should the committee approve an internship, as it evidently did in the instance we reported, the seminary itself is not obligated to place a seminarian on internship. As we pointed out in the piece, a great deal of effort was made to find an internship site for the student, even to the extent of ignoring or overlooking several key points in the ELCA’s policy on internships. Only an active ignorance of the policy permitted the seminary to accept as supervisor a pastor who is out-of-compliance with ELCA policies.
You can read for yourself Internship in the ELCA. It is part of the overall Candidacy Manual located at <
www.elca.org/dm/documents.html>.
There are several things to highlight from the internship section in that manual. Seminaries are required to “place eligible students on internship in accordance with the expectations of the ELCA. . . .” One must immediately ask whether a supervisor publicly in open violation of Vision and Expectations qualifies as an internship supervisor.
Further, seminaries are to “maintain effective communication with synodical bishops.” As we said, that seems not to have happened in this case.
Bishops are expected to be fully informed, beginning with being the ones who identify and encourage congregations and pastors to consider applying for an intern.
And then there are three specific requirements for the intern: (a) endorsement by the candidacy committee, (b) enrollment at or affiliation with an ELCA seminary, and (c) approval for placement by the seminary.
It is the last one that is most pertinent to Luther Seminary, and all the seminaries for that matter. The seminary must approve the person and lacking approval, the seminary is not bound by any recommendation from the candidacy committee. As for internship supervisors themselves, a pastor ordained only three years may serve as a supervisor. However, supervisors “must be
approved . . . by the seminary . . . in consultation with the synodical bishop.” We are pretty sure that did not happen in the case we reported.
There’s more. Supervisors are to “know and support the polity, policies, and positions of this church. . . .” and internship sites are to be chosen “after consultation with the bishop of the synod.”
There may be more to the few items beside the ones we gleaned from an admittedly hurried reading of the manual. But these things seem awfully clear in placing most of the responsibility for internship upon the seminaries, and upon Luther Seminary for this particular internship.
We agree wholeheartedly with one correspondent who pointed out, “The ultimate source of these problems are the bishops, who have de facto altered ELCA policy by refusing to enforce clear policies. When ELCA policy shifted from expelling to ‘censuring’ congregations out of compliance, ELCA policy was effectively changed to a sort of complex local option. Thus, the question now before the ELCA is not simply whether policy will be changed in a more ‘liberal’ direction, but whether we will return to the policy in place when the ELCA was formed, or remain with the ambiguous situation the bishops have created.” —— by the editors
Copyright 2004 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau