Prayer service for Concordia University-Wisconsin

[Jeremy_Loesch]

I thought Joy Pullman's column was very informative. I am very heartened to see that the philosophy department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz. I am not surprised by that, but am glad that he is vocally supporting Dr. Schulz in getting to the bottom of this.  It was also good to note that Dr. Peter Scaer was at the meeting with CUW and the South Wisconsin District and Dr. Schulz as a witness for Dr. Schulz.

Jeremy

Note- I modified this post when I learned that Dr. Schulz is in the philosophy department, not the theology department. And the chair of the philosophy department is Dr. Angus Menuge.

[RDPreus]

I have served as pastor of four LCMS parishes.  Two of them were predominantly Democratic and two were predominantly Republican.  Democratic parishioners overwhelmingly voted pro-life but did not become Republicans. 

[Dave Benke]

I have served as pastor of four LCMS parishes.  Two of them were predominantly Democratic and two were predominantly Republican.  Democratic parishioners overwhelmingly voted pro-life but did not become Republicans.

And you communed them irrespective of political party affiliation.  Way to go!

Dave Benke

[The Yak]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

[Jeremy_Loesch]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

Thank you Scott for that information. My mistske.

Jeremy

[Dave Benke]

From the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/christian-university-bans-professor-from-campus-for-critiquing-its-dive-into-equity-and-inclusion/

I've heard that the CUW theology department is asking the President of Synod, the SWD president, and the President of the CUS to make a formal visit.

LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison “is well aware of the challenges the ‘woke’ culture poses to the church’s very valuable institutions. He is deeply committed to the fact that CUW belongs to the congregations of the Synod, and these congregations have entrusted theological supervision of the Universities to the President of the Synod,” an LCMS spokesman wrote in a Friday email to The Federalist. “This controversy erupted when the Board of Regents rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee. Under Harrison’s leadership, the Church has elected similar, highly competent, theologically astute leaders at many of our beloved Concordias, and he intends to see the same at CUW.”

This paragraph states directly that the source of the controversy is the Board of Regents, who "rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee."  The authority of the Prior Approval Panel is what's been challenged at the heart of it.  Even though the Board of Regents had the right to request a new list and even though the Board of Regents was fine with the inclusion of all the prior finalists.   The Regents acted within their rights and obligations when they requested these things.  What the paragraph from the official Presidential representative in St. Louis attempts to say is that their rejection was out of hand - the candidates were the best list, and the only list possible.

Then the (apparently) philosophy professor unleashes his open letters which throw the Board under the bus, those placed beneath the bus react, and we're off to the races, with lots of people stuck under the bus. 

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

From the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/christian-university-bans-professor-from-campus-for-critiquing-its-dive-into-equity-and-inclusion/

I've heard that the CUW theology department is asking the President of Synod, the SWD president, and the President of the CUS to make a formal visit.

LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison “is well aware of the challenges the ‘woke’ culture poses to the church’s very valuable institutions. He is deeply committed to the fact that CUW belongs to the congregations of the Synod, and these congregations have entrusted theological supervision of the Universities to the President of the Synod,” an LCMS spokesman wrote in a Friday email to The Federalist. “This controversy erupted when the Board of Regents rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee. Under Harrison’s leadership, the Church has elected similar, highly competent, theologically astute leaders at many of our beloved Concordias, and he intends to see the same at CUW.”

This paragraph states directly that the source of the controversy is the Board of Regents, who "rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee."  The authority of the Prior Approval Panel is what's been challenged at the heart of it.  Even though the Board of Regents had the right to request a new list and even though the Board of Regents was fine with the inclusion of all the prior finalists.   The Regents acted within their rights and obligations when they requested these things.  What the paragraph from the official Presidential representative in St. Louis attempts to say is that their rejection was out of hand - the candidates were the best list, and the only list possible.

Then the (apparently) philosophy professor unleashes his open letters which throw the Board under the bus, those placed beneath the bus react, and we're off to the races, with lots of people stuck under the bus. 

Dave Benke

It seems to me that one can locate the start of going off to the races at almost any point on the timeline. Everyone was acting within their rights. The problem is that they were all acting within their rights to pull the institution in different directions. If it is arbitrary of the St. Louis spokesman to pinpoint the problem at the rejection of the approved list, it is just as arbitrary to pinpoint it at the article objecting to the rejection of the approved list.

[Steven W Bohler]

From the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/christian-university-bans-professor-from-campus-for-critiquing-its-dive-into-equity-and-inclusion/

I've heard that the CUW theology department is asking the President of Synod, the SWD president, and the President of the CUS to make a formal visit.

LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison “is well aware of the challenges the ‘woke’ culture poses to the church’s very valuable institutions. He is deeply committed to the fact that CUW belongs to the congregations of the Synod, and these congregations have entrusted theological supervision of the Universities to the President of the Synod,” an LCMS spokesman wrote in a Friday email to The Federalist. “This controversy erupted when the Board of Regents rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee. Under Harrison’s leadership, the Church has elected similar, highly competent, theologically astute leaders at many of our beloved Concordias, and he intends to see the same at CUW.”

This paragraph states directly that the source of the controversy is the Board of Regents, who "rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee."  The authority of the Prior Approval Panel is what's been challenged at the heart of it.  Even though the Board of Regents had the right to request a new list and even though the Board of Regents was fine with the inclusion of all the prior finalists.   The Regents acted within their rights and obligations when they requested these things.  What the paragraph from the official Presidential representative in St. Louis attempts to say is that their rejection was out of hand - the candidates were the best list, and the only list possible.

Then the (apparently) philosophy professor unleashes his open letters which throw the Board under the bus, those placed beneath the bus react, and we're off to the races, with lots of people stuck under the bus. 

Dave Benke

What do you think are the chances of the Board of Regents going with a candidate that was on the original list, when they already said that list was not good enough?

[Dave Likeness]

What Dr. Pat Ferry did at Concordia Wisconsin is often overlooked.
Besides being an articulate theologian and able administrator he
was a great fundraiser.  This is still an important quality needed in
the next Concordia University Wisconsin  President.   

Dr. Dale Meyer at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis was also a top-notch
theologian and administrator. However, he also excelled as a fundraiser.
This quality is necessary in the 21st century for all of our Concordia
Universities and Seminaries. 

Bottom Line:  With the emphasis on LCMS having doctrinal supervision
of all our Concordia Universities and the Universities having responsibility
for their own financial budgets.....The University Presidents need fundraising
expertise.

[Steven W Bohler]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

Although, according to the CUW website, 3 of the 4 professors in the philosophy department have been Lutheran pastors -- and the other (Dr. Menuge) is a rostered commissioned minister in the LCMS (I looked him up on the LCMS Locator to see his background as the CUW website only listed his degrees).  So these are not folks without theological background.

[The Yak]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

Although, according to the CUW website, 3 of the 4 professors in the philosophy department have been Lutheran pastors -- and the other (Dr. Menuge) is a rostered commissioned minister in the LCMS (I looked him up on the LCMS Locator to see his background as the CUW website only listed his degrees).  So these are not folks without theological background.

You lost me at "Although." I was merely correcting the record.

[Michael Slusser]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

Although, according to the CUW website, 3 of the 4 professors in the philosophy department have been Lutheran pastors -- and the other (Dr. Menuge) is a rostered commissioned minister in the LCMS (I looked him up on the LCMS Locator to see his background as the CUW website only listed his degrees).  So these are not folks without theological background.

You lost me at "Although." I was merely correcting the record.

Noted, and thank you.

Peace,
Michael

[Steven W Bohler]

I am very heartened to see that the theology department chair is sticking up for Dr. Schulz.

Dr. Menuge is the chair of the philosophy department, and Dr. Schulz is a professor in that department, not theology.

Although, according to the CUW website, 3 of the 4 professors in the philosophy department have been Lutheran pastors -- and the other (Dr. Menuge) is a rostered commissioned minister in the LCMS (I looked him up on the LCMS Locator to see his background as the CUW website only listed his degrees).  So these are not folks without theological background.

You lost me at "Although." I was merely correcting the record.

OK. 

[RevG]

From the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/christian-university-bans-professor-from-campus-for-critiquing-its-dive-into-equity-and-inclusion/

I've heard that the CUW theology department is asking the President of Synod, the SWD president, and the President of the CUS to make a formal visit.

LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison “is well aware of the challenges the ‘woke’ culture poses to the church’s very valuable institutions. He is deeply committed to the fact that CUW belongs to the congregations of the Synod, and these congregations have entrusted theological supervision of the Universities to the President of the Synod,” an LCMS spokesman wrote in a Friday email to The Federalist. “This controversy erupted when the Board of Regents rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee. Under Harrison’s leadership, the Church has elected similar, highly competent, theologically astute leaders at many of our beloved Concordias, and he intends to see the same at CUW.”

This paragraph states directly that the source of the controversy is the Board of Regents, who "rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee."  The authority of the Prior Approval Panel is what's been challenged at the heart of it.  Even though the Board of Regents had the right to request a new list and even though the Board of Regents was fine with the inclusion of all the prior finalists.   The Regents acted within their rights and obligations when they requested these things.  What the paragraph from the official Presidential representative in St. Louis attempts to say is that their rejection was out of hand - the candidates were the best list, and the only list possible.

Then the (apparently) philosophy professor unleashes his open letters which throw the Board under the bus, those placed beneath the bus react, and we're off to the races, with lots of people stuck under the bus. 

Dave Benke

It seems to me that one can locate the start of going off to the races at almost any point on the timeline. Everyone was acting within their rights. The problem is that they were all acting within their rights to pull the institution in different directions. If it is arbitrary of the St. Louis spokesman to pinpoint the problem at the rejection of the approved list, it is just as arbitrary to pinpoint it at the article objecting to the rejection of the approved list.

It appears, though, that Cario may have overplayed their hand because we are now in the legal realm. To me the deeper issue now is liability. If what Dr. Schulz claims is true (regarding his immediate suspension) then they have a serious problem that transcends theology and culture. You have a president that allegedly did not act in accord with the institution's procedures and there may be the Achilles’ heel of it all. Normally, in such circumstances, the accused don’t have much recourse, have other stressors, and are at the behest of the institutional power, but Schulz went a divergent path. He fought back as he saw fit the appropriateness of which can be debated. Unfortunately, that path is now being tried in the court of public opinion and CUW doesn't look all that great. This is not the first time such a thing has happened with a Concordia, either. Rexhouse vs Concordia-NY, Nunes, et al ended up in the local news more than once (in one instance on the front page of the Journal New whose distribution is pretty large) and with Synod’s lawyers eventually getting involved. The settlement didn’t come until this past summer after over two years of litigation and the school was just about closed for good. One part of a very sad and tragic ending.

[Dave Benke]

From the Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/07/christian-university-bans-professor-from-campus-for-critiquing-its-dive-into-equity-and-inclusion/

I've heard that the CUW theology department is asking the President of Synod, the SWD president, and the President of the CUS to make a formal visit.

LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison “is well aware of the challenges the ‘woke’ culture poses to the church’s very valuable institutions. He is deeply committed to the fact that CUW belongs to the congregations of the Synod, and these congregations have entrusted theological supervision of the Universities to the President of the Synod,” an LCMS spokesman wrote in a Friday email to The Federalist. “This controversy erupted when the Board of Regents rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee. Under Harrison’s leadership, the Church has elected similar, highly competent, theologically astute leaders at many of our beloved Concordias, and he intends to see the same at CUW.”

This paragraph states directly that the source of the controversy is the Board of Regents, who "rejected the very capable, theologically competent candidates given to it by the Prior Approval committee."  The authority of the Prior Approval Panel is what's been challenged at the heart of it.  Even though the Board of Regents had the right to request a new list and even though the Board of Regents was fine with the inclusion of all the prior finalists.   The Regents acted within their rights and obligations when they requested these things.  What the paragraph from the official Presidential representative in St. Louis attempts to say is that their rejection was out of hand - the candidates were the best list, and the only list possible.

Then the (apparently) philosophy professor unleashes his open letters which throw the Board under the bus, those placed beneath the bus react, and we're off to the races, with lots of people stuck under the bus. 

Dave Benke

It seems to me that one can locate the start of going off to the races at almost any point on the timeline. Everyone was acting within their rights. The problem is that they were all acting within their rights to pull the institution in different directions. If it is arbitrary of the St. Louis spokesman to pinpoint the problem at the rejection of the approved list, it is just as arbitrary to pinpoint it at the article objecting to the rejection of the approved list.

It appears, though, that Cario may have overplayed their hand because we are now in the legal realm. To me the deeper issue now is liability. If what Dr. Schulz claims is true (regarding his immediate suspension) then they have a serious problem that transcends theology and culture. You have a president that allegedly did not act in accord with the institution's procedures and there may be the Achilles’ heel of it all. Normally, in such circumstances, the accused don’t have much recourse, have other stressors, and are at the behest of the institutional power, but Schulz went a divergent path. He fought back as he saw fit the appropriateness of which can be debated. Unfortunately, that path is now being tried in the court of public opinion and CUW doesn't look all that great. This is not the first time such a thing has happened with a Concordia, either. Rexhouse vs Concordia-NY, Nunes, et al ended up in the local news more than once (in one instance on the front page of the Journal New whose distribution is pretty large) and with Synod’s lawyers eventually getting involved. The settlement didn’t come until this past summer after over two years of litigation and the school was just about closed for good. One part of a very sad and tragic ending.

A difference, and a pretty big one to me, Scott is that the Rexhouse case was a dismissal, not a suspension.  Further it was a dismissal and the CUW case is a suspension with full pay and benefits.  The  latter involves an internal process while compensation is fully covered for any next steps, the former involves take your stuff and go, you're fired and here's your final check. 

Dave Benke