Prayer service for Concordia University-Wisconsin

[Dave Benke]

Pastor Butler:
 I remember helping one student from LSTP move to CSL because he didn't believe in women's ordination (and he believed in the inerrancy of Scripture). His candidacy committee, and the administration of LSTP, made it clear that he needed to change his positions or he was gone.

Me:
That man was rejected not because of “intolerance.”,but out of pastoral concern for his ability to get a call and be collegial with his colleagues. You folks would bounce a man with reverse views for the same reason.

Yes, we would. That's the point. Bryan is yammering about two 1968 grads of CSL who won't go to Winkel's because it would make them angry--that LCMS rigidity and all.

My point is that the ELCA is just as rigid, only in a different direction. I'm glad to see that you agree with me.

The conference I was part of in California had great differences among the clergy - and we still got together for discussions and business. Moderator Dick Johnson was one of the more conservative folks - and he wasn't the most conservative guy in our group. For a while, there was also a gay pastor (in a relationship) who was part of the group. More than once a colleague stated that they disagreed with me, but it wasn't done in a kind and loving way; not attacking.


I can't comment about my present conference because their meetings are about 200 miles away and I haven't gone to any monthly gatherings. I gather that there are a range of opinions among those clergy, too. I just visited my colleague in town, who is a more conservative ELCA guy. We don't agree on many topics, but we are colleagues. At synod events, we always greet each other. (My parents were charter members of his congregation and their columbarium is their final resting place.)

I'm glad that your conference experiences have been positive. So have mine in the LCMS. Not that we don’t have disagreements. Most serious was one that we fought out over several months with dueling papers. (Mine ended up published in the Concordia Journal.) Not every Missourian is a frothing at the mouth conservative.

Nice turn of phrase there, Dan  .  Something that was always hard for people outside the national loop to understand, from my experience, was that the district presidents, although representing a pretty wide spectrum of difference on some theological points were really united when it came to their supervisory vocations and how that works out in life.  That's the same in the circuit gatherings, at least in my experience.  The work of the pastoral, or supervisory ministry, is what captures daily attention.  And it's along the same parameters so there's an enormous amount of common ground and dialog. 

In our area we have what I would call a distinct advantage in that through the years we have established an office auxiliary to the pastoral office, that of deacon, at the wider church/district level.  The deacons having been instructed in cohorts and having remained colleagues in a given area, stay in touch and meet regularly to hone their diaconal skills through mutual consolation and conversation.   They are prayer warriors on behalf of their pastors, as well as for one another.  It's something I'm deeply thankful for, as my deacons some now vicars communicate how they minister to God's people through the week.  Again, you don't find disunity there, just mutual encouragement.

So if you were to allow for a threefold office a la the New Testament and Church through the ages, my experience is that all three offices are designed for mutual edification and upbuilding in conversation/consolation as per the Lutheran Confessions.  And that activity is a function not of Law but of Gospel according to our confessions.

Dave Benke

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pastor Butler:
 I remember helping one student from LSTP move to CSL because he didn't believe in women's ordination (and he believed in the inerrancy of Scripture). His candidacy committee, and the administration of LSTP, made it clear that he needed to change his positions or he was gone.

Me:
That man was rejected not because of “intolerance.”,but out of pastoral concern for his ability to get a call and be collegial with his colleagues. You folks would bounce a man with reverse views for the same reason.

Yes, we would. That's the point. Bryan is yammering about two 1968 grads of CSL who won't go to Winkel's because it would make them angry--that LCMS rigidity and all.

My point is that the ELCA is just as rigid, only in a different direction. I'm glad to see that you agree with me.

The conference I was part of in California had great differences among the clergy - and we still got together for discussions and business. Moderator Dick Johnson was one of the more conservative folks - and he wasn't the most conservative guy in our group. For a while, there was also a gay pastor (in a relationship) who was part of the group. More than once a colleague stated that they disagreed with me, but it wasn't done in a kind and loving way; not attacking.


I can't comment about my present conference because their meetings are about 200 miles away and I haven't gone to any monthly gatherings. I gather that there are a range of opinions among those clergy, too. I just visited my colleague in town, who is a more conservative ELCA guy. We don't agree on many topics, but we are colleagues. At synod events, we always greet each other. (My parents were charter members of his congregation and their columbarium is their final resting place.)

I'm glad that your conference experiences have been positive. So have mine in the LCMS. Not that we don’t have disagreements. Most serious was one that we fought out over several months with dueling papers. (Mine ended up published in the Concordia Journal.) Not every Missourian is a frothing at the mouth conservative.

Nice turn of phrase there, Dan  .  Something that was always hard for people outside the national loop to understand, from my experience, was that the district presidents, although representing a pretty wide spectrum of difference on some theological points were really united when it came to their supervisory vocations and how that works out in life.  That's the same in the circuit gatherings, at least in my experience.  The work of the pastoral, or supervisory ministry, is what captures daily attention.  And it's along the same parameters so there's an enormous amount of common ground and dialog. 

In our area we have what I would call a distinct advantage in that through the years we have established an office auxiliary to the pastoral office, that of deacon, at the wider church/district level.  The deacons having been instructed in cohorts and having remained colleagues in a given area, stay in touch and meet regularly to hone their diaconal skills through mutual consolation and conversation.   They are prayer warriors on behalf of their pastors, as well as for one another.  It's something I'm deeply thankful for, as my deacons some now vicars communicate how they minister to God's people through the week.  Again, you don't find disunity there, just mutual encouragement.

So if you were to allow for a threefold office a la the New Testament and Church through the ages, my experience is that all three offices are designed for mutual edification and upbuilding in conversation/consolation as per the Lutheran Confessions.  And that activity is a function not of Law but of Gospel according to our confessions.

Dave Benke

The LCMS also has an advantage with all the pastors coming through only two seminaries. We had eight (now seven).


I interned in Ohio, and back in 1975 nearly all ALC pastors came from our Ohio Seminary, except my supervisor who was from Wartburg. He stated that District Conventions were not a homecoming event for him, like most of the other clergy. Some years back I did a workshop for the South Carolina Synod where nearly all their pastors come from the seminary in that state. They had pretty much the same education from the same professors. However, in other districts/synods where there is a mix, we might have been taught some different things, e.g., how to understand the third use of the law in the Formula. When the ELCA was discussing our full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church, seven seminaries endorsed it. One did not.

If "liberal" has as its definition, "open to other ideas," we have that with a variety of professors and seminaries for our clergy. (In addition, a few of our clergy go to places like Yale or Fuller for much of their seminary education.)

[Dave Benke]

With regard to the CUW situation, updates from We Love the Concordias.  Here's a link to a letter from the Academic Freedom Alliance, which is representing Prof. Schulz on a pro bono basis:

https://academicfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AFA-Letter-to-Concordia-University-Wisconsin-regarding-Gregory-Schulz.pdf

A few more items to follow, but a couple of notes -
a) these items are all from the Facebook Page entitled We Love the Concordias.  The site was founded in order to put Concordia Bronxville and President John Nunes out of business.  Guess what?
 It worked!  The Bronxville/Nunes posts are no longer available, though, on the website.  Slate wiped clean.
b) there's some LCMS handbook knowledge in the AFA letter, which excites me.  Love that Handbook - bylaw 3.10.5.7.3 - Amen, brother!  One of my favorites.  3.10.5.7.1 (b)1 is less fulfilling, but 3.10.5.7.3 is on the money.  What's not there is the institution's policy and procedure manual, which is a whole other thing with sub-paragraph details all its own.

Here's a letter from an unnamed someone or group who run the Facebook Page:

A RESPONSE TO INTERIM PRESIDENT CARIO'S UPDATE
Interim Pres. Cario's update on Prof. Schulz is troubling for a few reasons.
First, though Interim Pres. Cario speaks about due process after the suspension of Prof. Schulz, due process was not followed before the suspension and the reasons for the suspension have still not been made public.
Second, though Interim Pres. Cario has publicly accused Prof. Schulz of "numerous inaccuracies" in his article, he has yet to publicly specify or establish that public charge.
Third, and perhaps most importantly for the Church, the entire letter reeks of the attitude of "shut up and trust the process." The Church does not have good reasons to "trust the process." Woke ideology has run rampant at CUWAA for years. This is not debatable. The evidence has been made public and documented in Prof. Schulz's writings, on this page, and by many other persons.
It is wonderful that President Harrison and the district presidents involved have promised to look into this matter and we should hope, pray, expect, and believe that they will.
However, those students, colleagues, friends, and well-wishers who care for Prof. Schulz and love CUW and the entire Concordia University System ought not to "shut up and trust the process." The process has been dysfunctional for a long time, and the only reason why such great attention is being paid to this pressing issue now is because Prof. Schulz had the courage and faith to openly confront it.
Though some things may indeed need to remain private and confidential, the matter is already before the Church.
Let the Church hear it.

The conclusion is accurate, frankly because the professor and the facebook page operators as well as a well-organized network of companion websites and church leaders have personally and corporately placed them before the Church.  On purpose.  With attitude.  The word "reeks" kind of gives it away. 

There continue to be claims of frequent past interaction with CUW leaders on the "woke" agenda and the perils at CUW, connecting it to a departed worker, Gretchen Jameson; but the claims are made by the brother of the Ft. Wayne professor who made them on his Facebook page, which seems more like tag-teaming in order to amp up the volume.

Meanwhile the Interim President and Board attempt to figure things out in conjunction with Presidents Wille and Harrison.  All of these folks should feel harried, which seems to be the point.  I'm thinking of President Wille's reference to the Anti-Woke crew putting down the pitchforks and torches.  Like the mob that formed to hunt down Frankenstein, who finds himself in the hut of the blind violinist learning to love fire:  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=young+frankenstein+gene+hackman+scene&docid=607997151190727865&mid=5915AEE91077828EC5CE5915AEE91077828EC5CE&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
You can run, but you can't hide.

Finally, new news:  Concordia Texas, located outside Austin, has sent a letter of intention to leave the Concordia University System by the end of the upcoming summer:

The Concordia University Texas Board of Regents has notified the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod Board of Directors that it wishes to enter into a conversation by which the CTX Board will be the sole-governing body of the institution and remain in alignment with the LCMS, working together to serve the mission of the church and the university.  We expect to hear from them within a short time, after which a process will be determined, arriving at a final agreement between the LCMS and CTX no later than August 31, 2022.   

The CTX Board is seeking this type of governance and alignment for several reasons:

1 Both higher education and the church are facing changes in the culture and complexity in how they do their work.  Having greater freedom to lead locally and responsively serves both institutions well.

2 The autonomy of the Board is critical as it determines the future for CTX.  The proposed bylaws coming to the 2023 LCMS convention limit that autonomy.

3 In reviewing various models of governance among church-related schools, the Board sees this as an opportunity to govern more locally and lean into its alignment with the LCMS. 

We ask for your prayers that this conversation can lead to an outcome that is beneficial for the church at large.

The response of the Facebook Page We Love the Concordias exemplifies its love in this way:  The Concordias have to be brought back in line or else all of our colleges will be turned into worldly institutions.   Parting is such sweet sorrow, except when it isn't.

Lots to pray on!

Diversity, Inclusion and Equity are three beautiful Biblical themes through the full Scriptural witness, aren't they?

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

https://academicfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AFA-Letter-to-Concordia-University-Wisconsin-regarding-Gregory-Schulz.pdf

New letter, new group weighing in.  Here is a link to their leadership page: https://academicfreedom.org/leadership/

[The Yak]

Just as a point of information, we don't have tenure at CUWAA. A full professor (like Schulz or I) instead has a 5 year rolling contract so that you are always in the first year of the contract if all is going well.

[The Yak]

.Woke ideology has run rampant at CUWAA for years. This is not debatable. The evidence has been made public and documented in Prof. Schulz's writings, on this page, and by many other persons.

This is news to me. I've worked here for 5 years, and I see no evidence of rampant Wokism, or even of any significant Wokism. If anything, I would say the opposite.

[Michael Slusser]

.Woke ideology has run rampant at CUWAA for years. This is not debatable. The evidence has been made public and documented in Prof. Schulz's writings, on this page, and by many other persons.

This is news to me. I've worked here for 5 years, and I see no evidence of rampant Wokism, or even of any significant Wokism. If anythng, I would say the opposite.

"Wokism," whatever that is when it is at home, is in the eye of the beholder. I think that if one wants to see it, one sees it.

Peace,
Michael

[peter_speckhard]

It is somewhat ironic to see who is on what side of a debate over whether it is just and proper to place people on suspension from teaching at a Concordia without making the specific charges known. Isn't that what people's beef with what happened leading up to Seminex? And taking a defense of one so suspended public, what do they need to do, print up catchy slogan t-shirts to be accepted as acting in good faith?

That having been said, as with past brouhahas, everyone takes the side of the people they trust. In this case, I find myself inclined to trust both sides, so the whole thing just seems unnecessary.

I have never seen CUW do anything particularly woke. I'm no insider, but I do know some people who work/teach there, and I've know Prof. Yakimow as an online presence for many years and he's always seemed trustworthy to me. Plus, as a pastor and someone with lots of college-bound kids, I get gobs of mail from the Concordias. So my own gut inclination is not to believe that CUW (or CUWAA) is somehow captive to woke ideology. It seems like a very counter-intuitive claim to me. I don't know the interim president or the Regents, but I can't say I have any reason to think they're bad faith actors. 

Then again, I've never met Prof. Schulz (to my knowledge), either, and his online resume seems fairly impressive, and some people I know a little bit about seem to think that his getting suspended so abruptly was really unjust and heavy-handed. Why would anyone think those people are bad faith actors? It seems ridiculous for me to say to someone who has been suspended and says it was unjust that somehow I just know he is wrong about that he is getting what he deserves.

It seems to me if President Harrison suspended someone in this manner, the people now calling for trust in the process would be demanding transparency and calling for less tyrannical purging of disagreement, and the people now rallying to Prof. Schulz would likely be calling for trust in the process and leadership. Again, it all comes down to trust.

The whole thing is sad. All we can do is pray that no bridges are permanently burned.

[Rob Morris]

Here's a letter from an unnamed someone or group who run the Facebook Page:

<snip>
Though some things may indeed need to remain private and confidential, the matter is already before the Church.
Let the Church hear it.

Oh, how I love this Missouri two-step:

Problem - the LC explanation to the eighth commandment gives passionate instructions that making a sin known is itself an equal sin in God's eyes, allowing an exception only when the judge and everyone already know.

Solution -
Step one: tell it to the whole church
Step two: now everybody already knows, so we can talk about it and rail against it

But God cannot be mocked. Whoever took step one still broke the eighth commandment.

Case in point: I had no idea about the purported situation until Dr. Schulz published in Christian News (which I freely admit to perusing when it arrives, unbidden, in my mailbox).

I hope, for the sake of his soul, that he was truly acting within his god-given vocation to publish as he did. Were I his pastor, I would have some very pointed questions on that front. Likewise, I hope, for the sake of their souls, that the CN and BJS and FB "We Love" folks are, too. Because otherwise, the passage about logs and specks looms large. And God will not be mocked. The parallel passage in the 7th commandment about doing something "in a way that only appears right" comes into play. As does the 1st commandment's "fear, love, and trust in God above all things"... even when terms like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are in play.

[peter_speckhard]

Here's a letter from an unnamed someone or group who run the Facebook Page:

<snip>
Though some things may indeed need to remain private and confidential, the matter is already before the Church.
Let the Church hear it.

Oh, how I love this Missouri two-step:

Problem - the LC explanation to the eighth commandment gives passionate instructions that making a sin known is itself an equal sin in God's eyes, allowing an exception only when the judge and everyone already know.

Solution -
Step one: tell it to the whole church
Step two: now everybody already knows, so we can talk about it and rail against it

But God cannot be mocked. Whoever took step one still broke the eighth commandment.

Case in point: I had no idea about the purported situation until Dr. Schulz published in Christian News (which I freely admit to perusing when it arrives, unbidden, in my mailbox).

I hope, for the sake of his soul, that he was truly acting within his god-given vocation to publish as he did. Were I his pastor, I would have some very pointed questions on that front. Likewise, I hope, for the sake of their souls, that the CN and BJS and FB "We Love" folks are, too. Because otherwise, the passage about logs and specks looms large. And God will not be mocked. The parallel passage in the 7th commandment about doing something "in a way that only appears right" comes into play. As does the 1st commandment's "fear, love, and trust in God above all things"... even when terms like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are in play.

The first I heard of any of this was the public announcement of a prayer service on the subject as posted here.

I have a problem with people who hate Christian News and then complain about the violations of the 8th that result from it. If you already know it is a context where reputations are unfairly shredded, you have a moral obligation to stay away from it or else to go in there and defend anyone's reputation that is being shredded. By being informed of what is being said but not wading into the fray with defense of those being maligned, you empower CN and are hypocritical to blame them for not putting the best construction on your neighbor's actions when you were there not defending your neighbor's reputation. "Defend him" comes before "put the best construction on everything" or "explain everything in the kindest way." But to read CN (always by mere happenstance coming across someone else's copy and "glancing" at it, never reading it on purpose out of morbid curiosity, of course) and then gripe about what is in it without taking them up on their offer to print defenses of those being trashed, you simply become part of the problem you decry. It is like following the gossips all around the school and then tsk-tsking them for being such gossips.   

[Rob Morris]

Not sure I’m really your best target here. I peruse through CN. I don’t seek it out, nor do I denigrate it… I wouldn’t subscribe to it but it gets sent to my church regardless of subscription. Sometimes, it has interesting viewpoints. Other times, it’s pure muckraking.

But now that you mention it, I think you are correct and my memory was mistaken: the first I heard of the current issue was here because of Professor Pless’ posting of the prayer service. (This could perhaps itself spark an interesting discussion: in my previous experiences of other corners of Christianity, gossip could easily disguise itself as a “prayer request”: “We should pray for so and so… didn’t you hear…”) Within a day’s time, I had seen it multiple other places as well. I had a parishioner ask me about it by email.

I agree that seeking out gossip and then rebuking it would be two-faced at best.

The point remains: none of the matter was “before the church” until it was published in the form of three articles by Dr. Schulz. Then immediate attention was called to those articles by various sources.

Doing the two-step of publishing sin and then saying it doesn’t violate the eighth commandment to rebuke it because now everyone knows it is reprehensible. I am not at close enough range to say for sure if any of the men involved have done so. That would be between that man, his father confessor, and God.

That said, on a functional level, the eighth commandment has nearly no role within the LCMS’s public discourse at this point because a significant and vocal faction consider all matters of practice and doctrine to be public matters and therefore worthy of public comment and public rebuke. Completely blind to the fact that they are the publicists making it public in order to rebuke. As you know, Luther has extremely strong words for such behavior.

[The Yak]

It is somewhat ironic to see who is on what side of a debate over whether it is just and proper to place people on suspension from teaching at a Concordia without making the specific charges known. Isn't that what people's beef with what happened leading up to Seminex? And taking a defense of one so suspended public, what do they need to do, print up catchy slogan t-shirts to be accepted as acting in good faith?

That having been said, as with past brouhahas, everyone takes the side of the people they trust. In this case, I find myself inclined to trust both sides, so the whole thing just seems unnecessary.

I have never seen CUW do anything particularly woke. I'm no insider, but I do know some people who work/teach there, and I've know Prof. Yakimow as an online presence for many years and he's always seemed trustworthy to me. Plus, as a pastor and someone with lots of college-bound kids, I get gobs of mail from the Concordias. So my own gut inclination is not to believe that CUW (or CUWAA) is somehow captive to woke ideology. It seems like a very counter-intuitive claim to me. I don't know the interim president or the Regents, but I can't say I have any reason to think they're bad faith actors. 

Then again, I've never met Prof. Schulz (to my knowledge), either, and his online resume seems fairly impressive, and some people I know a little bit about seem to think that his getting suspended so abruptly was really unjust and heavy-handed. Why would anyone think those people are bad faith actors? It seems ridiculous for me to say to someone who has been suspended and says it was unjust that somehow I just know he is wrong about that he is getting what he deserves.

It seems to me if President Harrison suspended someone in this manner, the people now calling for trust in the process would be demanding transparency and calling for less tyrannical purging of disagreement, and the people now rallying to Prof. Schulz would likely be calling for trust in the process and leadership. Again, it all comes down to trust.

The whole thing is sad. All we can do is pray that no bridges are permanently burned.

I'm appalled that you don't remember meeting me in 2009 at the ELCA convention at, now here I'm no longer sure, someone's house. Fr. Michael was there as were a number of other ALPB personalities.

As faculty at the same institution, I am (of course) interested in the process for Schulz's suspension. I have no information to add on that score, and I very much want to know that proper procedures were followed. While I disagree heartily with the article (it really is poorly done), I do care quite a bit that proper procedures were followed when suspending Dr. Schulz.

That said, I will continue to speak out against his article (which is entirely of public record). It is insufficiently sourced, poorly argued, and contains obvious inaccuracies, such as the claim that the prospectus does not require the next president to be faithful to Scripture and the Confessions.

In fact, he rails against the BoR and its committees on this point, saying that they are divorced from authoritative texts -- except that they aren't, and they say that they aren't, exactly in the document he is critiquing.

[peter_speckhard]

I do in fact remember meeting you and several others in 2009. But my memory of that whole excursion and aftermath is fuzzy enough that I didn’t think it sufficient basis to say I know you personally. I did have occasion amid all the news from Eastern Europe to remember your Ruthinian heritage and firm belief that Ruthinians were not to be messed with. And don’t you do karate with all your kids? I think you’re safe from suspension.

[Charles Austin]

I do not have a fish in this pond, but I have long had opinions about Church colleges that are - in some circles, mostly outside the ELCA - unpopular.
   I am a proud graduate of a church college. So is Beloved Spouse. Augsburg University in Minneapolis gave my daughter a fine preparation for her career as a social worker. And it was where she met her future husband, a Roman Catholic who came over to "our side."
   But I have contended for a long time that today if a church college wants to be a church college, that is primarily, for preparing Church workers or for inculcating in all students a strong loyalty to Christianity or the denomination sponsoring the college, it will have a hard row to hoe.
   I think I even proposed once - perhaps in a Lutheran Forum article - that we should consider closing our colleges and using the money to establish strong, well-funded campus ministries Lutheran Service centers at state universities.
   We would sponsor forums and workshops on the faith and the professions, we would provide easy on campus worship and socializing. We would involve Professors at the schools in activities allowing them to express their faith and lead others to it.
   We would be taking faith and life into "the world" where the faith and life of the students (and probably more of them than at our Concordias or Augustanas) will be lived.
   Otherwise, we in the ELCA will have colleges that are essentially secular, and you in the LCMS will face constant - really constant - attack on the Concordias that allow gay rights groups, sponsor "liberal" or "woke" activities, and don't make every classroom or activity conform to the LC-MS handbook. And should you be successful in making a "true" LCMS college, attendance will dwindle until only the children of certain pastors - by that time probably professors at the school - will be there.

[The Yak]

I do in fact remember meeting you and several others in 2009. But my memory of that whole excursion and aftermath is fuzzy enough that I didn’t think it sufficient basis to say I know you personally. I did have occasion amid all the news from Eastern Europe to remember your Ruthinian heritage and firm belief that Ruthinians were not to be messed with. And don’t you do karate with all your kids? I think you’re safe from suspension.

Dude. Don't mess with Ruthenians. We'll ruin your whole day.