This morning the following letter from lawyers concerning Dr. Schulz was forwarded to me in order to share it more widely.
It appears in their attempt to cancel Rev. Dr. Schulz the administration did not follow its own rules (a big no-no in policy based governance).
If you haven’t already please reach out to the administration of Concordia, Wisconsin and the chairman of the board.
Also consider encouraging District President John Wille and Synod President Matthew Harrison to look into this situation as it sounds like not only our theology is being violated but also the standard rules of practice within the organization. Of course the former is the biggest concern, but the latter can also create a real mess in this world.
21 thoughts on “More from Concordia Wisconsin… not following rules for due process”
I support Rev Doctor Schultz.
Well, welcome to “Misery” Synod. Satan continues to afflict false doctrine and it’s practices among the faithful of God’s Word and people.
So, without a serious change of course from the upper levels of leadership, we are left to wonder if Wisconsin will go the way of Portland (death by leftism) or the way of Edmonton (theft by leftism). I admit that I am rather ill-informed in the ways of CUS governance and oversight; but from a common layman’s perspective, the outlook is poor for our synodical institutions of higher education.
Since Rev. Dr. Shultz noted that the DIE statements were likely entering the school through accreditation commissions, a practical, and increasingly urgent, step in recovering control of our Lutheran colleges is to de-couple entirely from federal funding. This should be a major synod priority, as we must keep the religion of the state out of our schools. A quick review of the CUW Financial Aid website indicates that 99.6% of students receive financial aid of some sort, totaling an average of $23,395. While that includes scholarships and grants from private sources, as well as federal loans or grants, we can assume this to be a maximum value which we would need to provide. This comes out to approximately $6,000 per student per year, or $180,000,000 per year if extrapolated to all ~30,000 students in the CUS (2012 figure, so I’m unsure on the accuracy considering recent closures). I would be very interested in how much money would actually be required annually to achieve this decoupling.
Thank you for keeping us posted on the Concordia Wisconsin matter and Rev. Dr. Shultz’s situation, in particular.
Just listened to the virtual town hall meeting on February 24, 2022. At the end, Dr. Cario was asked to articulate one of the inaccuracies of the piece the Dr. Schulz published in Christian News. Cairo stated that the author had an incomplete understanding of the accreditation process. Cario said that Schulz implied that the accreditation agency would not allow Concordia to function as a Christian institution. That just isn’t true. Schulz’s paper stated that the accreditation process is an avenue through which the woke ideology is finding its way into the curriculum, faculty, etc. at Concordia. Cario’s statement was disingenuous at best or misleading at worst. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this just isn’t right.
Let me first begin with I am not sure about the other professions I know we need them to be Lutheran and this is a complicated issue.
However, Karl H is on to something good but we should go deeper. Why does the Concordia System as a whole have all sort of programs that have nothing to do with church work.
I believe it is time for the Concordia System to get back to the basics. Stop asking for money to support scholarships that go to non-Lutherans and Lutherans alike and they have no intention of supporting the local Lutheran church in the future.
While it is laudable for young people to further their Christian Education with a college degree but that was not the intention of the early founders of the Concordias. The early founders of Concordia Texas 1926 “Founded as Lutheran Concordia College of Texas, a four-year high school for young men entering ministry” From History of Concordia Wisconsin “For the next approximately eight decades, Concordia College offered high school and the first two years of a liberal arts college program, providing classical, technical, and religious instruction for students who desired to prepare themselves for the ministry of the Lutheran Church.” Currently CUC has no history of it’s inception but I know that it was known as the teacher’s college as was Seward.
My mom and dad were not raised Lutheran but every professional church worker they met as adult confirmands told them you only go to Concordia to become a church worker if you find out something different that church work is not for you at least you will have the foundation to transition to another program at a non church work school. How sad that church work students are now the minority at all the Concordia except the two seminaries.
So Yes Karl let the LCMS start decoupling from the federal assistance program and let’s only have true passionate Christians who truly are desiring to serve the church and their Lord Jesus and let them get back to the rigors of true theological studies so that we can have rigorous vibrant and faithful schools and churches that the Missouri was once known for. The Missouri has lost it’s quality control division aka at one time all teachers and pastors had their degrees Bachelors and Masters from a Concordia and had been approved in the church’s usual order. Not the watered down versions of SMP and Colloquy. I am just saying.
It was quite surprising to see Dr. Schulz’s article in Christian News, especially having read the entire CUW Prospectus. I have immense admiration for him and he is a keen intellect, which confused me even more.
While it is clearly Schulz’s belief that the writers of the prospectus intended to express a focus upon racial diversity, that is never indicated in any of the documents. The statement in the prospectus, taken at face value, would suggest a broad and general definition of the word “diversity.” It is certainly a word that is used regularly in what Schulz refers to as Woke-ism, but it is a word, like many others in the English language, that is used in a variety of ways. To suggest that the writers and approvers of the prospectus intended the most radical leftist notions of diversity by simply using the phrase “diversity in all its myriad forms” requires far greater evidence than provided in his article. In fact, a quick search on the LCMS.org website reveals widespread use of the word “diversity”, referring to diversity of abilities, vocations, ethnicities, worships practices, and more.
A more likely interpretation of the word “diversity” in the prospectus would be to recognize that Concordia University Wisconsin is a school of over 8000 students who come from a wide range of backgrounds, even different parts of the world. Some come to the University because it is Lutheran and Christian, but many do not. Rather they come because it is highly regarded academically, with degrees in pharmacy, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and even a highly selective physicians assistant program. This creates a great variety of backgrounds, academic interests, and religious convictions among students. In one sense, Concordia University Wisconsin is a powerful mission field, with faculty and staff having the opportunity to be a faithful witness to such students.
While some limit their visions of Lutheran education to schools that serve exclusively or primarily Lutherans, that is not the the student makeup of Concorida University Wisconsin. There is, however, an undeniable and faithful Christian witness to the myriad of students who find themselves as students at the University, and should Concordia choose to continue to embrace such a mission, it will be important for the next president to be aware and well-equipped for the task.
There is certainly a risk of using terms and phrases that do not originate in the Scriptures or Confessions, ones that may well have multiple meanings and connotations in society, some definitions and uses which are in direct or indirect conflict with the Scriptures and Confessions. Yet, it is indeed a complication of contemporary life, and one that is unavoidable in the many vocations. As such, Schulz’s critique of using these terms is one worthy of consideration, but his assertion that use of these phrases is directly equated with a Woke-ist agenda by the CUW Board and Search Committee requires much greater evidence than what he provides in his article.
In one part of the Christian News article, Schulz focuses upon the importance of “authoritative and sacrosanct texts” and how these are dismissed by the ideologies that he describes collectively as Woke-ism. After explaining the devaluating of such texts, he returns to a critique of the presidential prospectus. He writes, “There is no room for privileged authorities – not a hint that all teaching authority at the university has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). There is no room for sacrosanct texts – not a mention of what Christ says in His verbatim Word about education, not a clue that they are seeking a president capable of articulating a philosophy of education that is based on Christ Himself (Colossians 2:8-9).“
Given Schulz’s unquestionably keen intellect, attention to detail, and deep respect for the written word, this portion of his critique is admittedly confusing. Granted, he deems what is written in the prospectus to be inadequate, but allow me to provide a list of statements taken directly from the presidential prospectus.
On the first page of the prospectus, it stakes that, “We seek a deeply committed leader of uncommon capacity, Christian character, Lutheran fidelity, and innovative will…” What does “Lutheran fidelity” mean if not a commitment to the fundamental principles of the LCMS, namely that Scripture in the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God; and that as the norm and source of doctrine?
On the second page, after noting the desire for a president who upholds the mission, vision, and values of Concordia, the fist value describes “Christ-centered environments”, “Christian faculty”, and “connect[ing] faith and learning.”
On page three, it states that, “The next President will be faithful, devoted to Christ first, in all things.”
On page six, it states that they are seeking a member of the LCMS, “a faithful Lutheran Christian”, “a person of deep faith”, along with being “humble and devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ and God’s Word; winsome and fervent in their confession of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church.”
Also on page six, it states further criteria: “active member in good standing of a congregation of the LCMS”, faithful to the Holy Scriptures, sharing that faith and its expression in worship and service”, and “Faithful to the Lutheran Confessions and firmly supportive of the LCMS constitution, bylaws, practices, and policies.”
After reading this list of direct quotes and traits from the prospectus, reread that prior critique from Schulz. Do these words indicate, as Schulz claimed, “no room for authoritative texts”, “not a hint that all teaching authority has been given to Christ”, “not a mention of what Christ says in His verbatim Word about education”, or “not a clue that they are seeking a president capable of articulating a philosophy of education that is based on Christ Himself”? Perhaps the prospectus is not detailed enough for Schultz, but no room, not a hint, and not a mention?
Given how much philosophical and ideological intent and background that Schulz reads into the few references to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the prospectus; would it not at least be fair to treat these much more frequently mentioned phrases of Christian and Lutheran distinctive with the same care? What far left Marxist would call for a president who is faithful to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, as expected of the next president in the prospectus? At a minimum, it is hard to understand why Schulz would not at least recognize these many phrases in the prospectus and then explain why he deems them inadequate. As his article stands, if one reads only that and not the original prospectus, it would be possible for a person to assume that the Board and Search Committee had indicated absolutely no interest in or value for a president who is devoted to leading a Lutheran university that is shaped by God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions. As it stands, one would need to engage in incredibly selective reading of the prospectus to miss the high priority based upon such factors.
I’m even more baffled because as much as I respect the careful thinking that goes into so many articles on this blog, I have not to see anyone point out side an incredibly massive oversight. Did people just not even read the prospectus?
In a later paragraph, Schulz again equates the single use of the phrase equity and inclusion along with the use of the word diversity as promoting” racialized (a word not used once in the prospectus but Schulz adds)‘diversity in all its myriad forms,’ as an announcement that the BOR is intending “to disrupt the authority of the biblical text and in this way to transform our university from an institution of Lutheran higher education…” Yet, how does one come to such a conclusion without ignoring or disregarding the direct and repeated language about the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and Lutheran identity that we find in the presidential prospectus?
Interestingly, and of some concern, is that this assumption of guilt based upon one’s word choice in such situations (and less than a dozen or so words at that), is a common practice in the power over truth movement prevalent in what Schulz refers to as Woke-ism. One can be cancelled, demonized, devalued, or marked by simply being pointed out as a person or group that uses of a certain word or set of phrases, claiming that use of the language is a strong argument that a person is to be doubted, questioned, shunned, or brought to repentance. This is a dangerous precedent to set among Christians, and risks seeking a position of Confessional Lutheran substance but with Woke-ism style and strategies, as if the latter does not muzzle or mutate the former. Since when did Confessional Lutherans embrace the practices of the radical left and with some sort of end justifies the means ethic that is far from consistent with the Scriptures or the Confessions? As a confessional Lutheran, I am admittedly shaken by this lack of rigor and embrace of leftist practices, and it is causing me to seriously reconsider my alliances. If we no longer care about truth and it is just about posturing for power, then we are no longer holding to our Confessional stance.
Why is nobody even asking these basic questions about his argument? None of this is to suggest that CUW is perfect. It is most certainly not, just as we would all likely be surprised at the variety of beliefs and practices (even if subtle) within many of our parishes.
Schulz concludes his article by proposing three key attributes of the next president.
First, he asserts that, “the next president must believe in and have a demonstrated commitment to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.” The BOR and Search Committee clearly agree with him on this point, as they use almost those exact words, some more than once, in the prospectus. Why Schulz does not acknowledge this fact remains a mystery.
Second, Schulz argues for “a pastor-professor with an exceptional, longstanding spiritual and intellectual / academic record of ministry and leadership in concord with his belief in and commitment to the Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.” Here, if he means that it that the next President must be an ordained minister, there is difference with the Synod’s interpretation of the bylaws (given prior approval of many non-ordained people in the CUW search combined with the last three presidential searches in the CUS), but with regard to the second portion, again, there would seem to be clear agreement based upon the published prospectus.
Third, Schulz argues that the next president, “must be a pastor-professor of substantial moral authority on the basis of his commitment to bringing Christ, the Lord of Sabbath-rest to students, to faculty, to the Concordia community, and to all restless people of the world whom we can reach — this via the means that Christ has instituted and commended to us for the work of teaching in a world largely in rebellion against God’s authority and thus disquieted, dysphoric, and in need of a genuinely higher education: education in the Way, the Truth, and the Life incarnate.” Once more, based upon a literal and careful reading of the prospectus, I would expect that the BOR and Search Committee would agree with Schulz.
As much as Schulz’s article is a strong critique and claim that CUW is succumbing to Woke-ism, if one carefully reads the presidential prospectus and barring what some might read as the aggressive tone of the Schulz article, I see far more commonality than difference between his priorities and those of the BOR. Schulz makes strong claims that would require far more concrete evidence to take more seriously, but he also brings up important cautions, critiques, and concerns about what Concodia can and should avoid, using this presidential transition as an opportunity to deepen its commitment to the Scriptures and Confessions as it lives out its stated mission statement of equipping “students in mind, body, and spirit for service to Christ in the church and world.”
Concorida University Wisconsin is a fine institution that has a long record of commitment to its Lutheran roots, but with its own recognition, it is imperfect and there is indeed room for it to improve in important ways. While there is a messiness to living out its current mission to such a varied student body and in the current post-Christian era, there is also opportunity for improvement and correction. The Schulz article ultimately reads as a list of sound words of caution, but blurred by other statements and a style that lacks the truly dispassionate and careful textual critique that one would expect from a scholar with such a sharp mind and cognizant intellect. He is, nonetheless, a gift to the church and the University, and it is my sincere prayer that both he and the University will embrace a shared commitment to humility, truth, and reconciliation in a way that affirms a positive and faithful path forward.
Nonetheless, given what almost seems like an international effort to hide the actual facts provided in the prospectus, I confess that my view of this blog as as trusted source is greatly shaken.
Giving a charitable response to your comment, I believe much of it seems to express a “naiveté” about how any college or university uses the terms inclusion, diversity, etc.
I’d like to think, I anyone could say, “I’m gay!”, and not be mistakenly understood to say anything other than, “I’m happy [or with great joy]!” But few are not so näive to think that, such an expression today, means to proudly proclaim they are homosexual. So too Jesus understood words in context have different values and meaning; see Our Lord’s admonition and disassociation toward those who claimed to follow Him in Matthew 7.21-23, “I never knew you.” So, no university publication simply stating they are “Christian” [or Lutheran”] can be taken at face value. Being a Christian or Lutheran at CU Irvine may be different than it was [defunct] CU Portland, or at the Mequon campus. Even self-proclaimed “confessional Lutherans”, understanding this phenomenon of having to discern and speak language contextually; so many often add “quia” to assure other [e.g. Woke ELCA types] of what type of confessional Lutheran they are.
I positively assume that many in our synod are “awake” enough to know Dr. Schulz’s active insider knowledge of CUW’s use of woke terminology in its official publications, is accurately interpreted, and that he remains innocent, until given [a lacking] due process, and likely afterward when he is likely found to be truth-teller who rocked a Woke boat.
Respectfully in Christ,
Marc – Thank you for the reply. I really do appreciate it. The crickets in an initial response was troubling, as I truly hoped that someone would provide one or two quick responses that easily pointed out what I am missing so that I could be relieved of this genuine distress regarding the concerns noted in my earlier comment. The prospectus did not simply mention “Confessional Lutheran”, “Christian”, or “Lutheran.” They clearly stated that the next president must convey a commitment to the Holy Scriptures, The Lutheran Confessions, along with being “firmly supportive of the LCMS constitution, bylaws, practices, and policies.” This is no vague Christian terminology that they used. The part that baffles me still stands. I’ve never met someone more have I ever read a text written by someone who managed to demonstrate a commitment to the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, the LCMS constitution, and the LCMS bylaws who was also an entrenched radical left Marxist striving to expunge all uses of the Scriptures and replace them with a full-scale Woke agenda. I have met and read people who unknowingly or subtlety found themselves influenced by some of Marxist ideas, while not necessarily understanding the full implications of those ideas and how they are in conflict with the Scriptures and Confessions. However, Schulz doesn’t make the latter case.
Schulz is a world-class scholar. I’ve read pretty much everything (if not everything, and some two or three times) that has has ever published. I know and respect his work through his writing. It would be an insult to him if I read his article in the Christian News and assumed or read into his article things that he did not intentionally include. A published work, I contend, must be read and reviewed on the basis of the text itself, even if there had been no author name attached to it. Unless I begin to lean into literary practices of postmodernism (perhaps reader response theory) or practices of the radical left that would be more in line with what Schulz critiques in the Christian News article, I am bound to read, analyze, critique, and make sense of his article on the basis of what he wrote. In this case, he regularly cites the prospectus so a comparative analysis would only seem proper.
It seems irrefutable that, despite Schulz writing that there is “no mention” and “no hint”, the prospectus clearly articulates an expectation that the next president be committed to the Scriptures, Lutheran Confessions, LCMS constitution, the LCMS bylaws. Schulz himself critiques the prospectus and presidential search writings for disregarding a pronoun (which I agree is problematic), so how can I not honor him by analyzing his text in the Christian News with an equal standard of attention to detail and assumption that he is not being sloppy or flippant with his word choice? Schulz is too excellent of a scholar to miss the myriad of such references in the prospectus. Why did he claim, in his published article, that these references did not exist in the prospectus? Is that not a false claim? Please, I am genuinely pleading for someone to give me a compelling and rationale alternate explanation. Again, he may choose to claim that the references were inadequate or inconsistent with use of diversity, equity, and inclusion language; but to claim that there is “no hint,” and “no mention”? That is just untrue.
As to nativity about the use of the world diversity, perhaps (and I will genuinely further consider that possibility, so thank you for the critique). At the same time, this is an area to which I have devoted a great deal of time and study. I am not an expert, but neither am I a novice. Despite the pain and toil of working through it, I’m quite familiar with a number of the primary and seminal texts associated with the radical left on these matters, along with some of the more recent popular texts that let to such ideals bleeding into popular culture (and many schools, including Christian ones). I’ve taken great care to analyze these texts in light of the Scriptures and confessional Lutheran theology, but again, I do not want to over-represent my knowledge, I am no expert. To say that these texts are problematic is an understatement, and while I do not know this to be true, I would be very surprised if anyone in leadership at CUW is well-versed in or devoted to the movements represented in these texts. I don’t doubt that there may well be influences on individuals, and more catechesis is needed in Lutheran schools, churches, and universities regarding what the Scriptures teach. Nonetheless, I need much more evidence to be convinced that an entire board or core group of university administration at CUW is somehow strategically orchestrating a radical Marxist takeover of some sort, which is how I read some of the very direct claims and accusations by Schulz in the article.
Thank you for your thoughtful critique of Dr. Schulz’s article vis-a-vis the actual Prospectus. I’ve read through both. You are certainly correct that the Presidential Prospectus is replete with references to Lutheran identity, faithfulness to the Lutheran Confessions, and even faithfulness to God’s Word (the sacrosanct text). But I don’t think you’ve read Dr. Schulz’s critique correctly. He is actually very specific when he criticizes that document’s failures. He doesn’t say it doesn’t mention the Bible or Lutheranism or faithfulness to them. He says it fails to articulate a wish for a president who will lead with Christ’s own authority. He says that it fails to articulate a philosophy of education based on God’s Word, that it says nothing about what Christ says about education, says nothing about wanting a president who can articulate this philosophy of education. He especially faults it for not calling for a president who can do battle against arguments and all arrogance raised against the knowledge of God. When he says, “There is no room for sacrosanct texts,” he follows it with a dash and an explanation of what he means by this, which is what I just summarized above.
As to the definition of DEI, I don’t find Dr. Cario’s explanation sufficient in the least. Diversity in all its myriad forms quite obviously and necessary (ALL ITS MYRIAD FORMS) includes diversity of sexual orientation, which is contrary to God’s Word. And no responsible person could use the word “equity” in today’s context without meaning what the woke mob means by it. The fact is, no matter the annoyances of Dr. Schulz’s way of expressing things, he is the child who declared the emperor has no clothes. And when we looked, we saw, and the emperor was naked.
Thank you for the reply, Elizabeth. Yes, there is important nuance in the paragraph that you referenced in Dr. Schulz’s article. I appreciated that, hence my note that a more accurate critique from Schulz would be to say that the prospectus language is inadequate or inconsistent. Yet, how can one claim “no hint” and “no mention” when there is such significance reference to the Scriptures, Confessions, and Lutheran identity? There is a fair and valuable argument that there is inconsistency in the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion language with the other references, but that is not his argument as laid out in the article.
To your point about “diversity in all its myriad of forms”, I agree that is sloppy language, but if you pair that with the language about faithfulness to the Scriptures and the Confessions, then it is likely (if not clear) that they did not intend things like sexual orientation. If we asked any board member at CUW along with anyone in the upper levels of administration, I would be completely surprised if any of them interpreted “diversity in all its myriad of forms” in that way, and I have a high level of confidence that the Board would not consider a next President who aligned with such ideals. I could be mistaken, but I would be surprised. I’ve just never met a radical left-wing Marxist (and I’ve met many) who talked about the importance of the Scriptures, Confessions, and Lutheran identity in the way described in the prospectus.
I suppose, putting the best construction on things, I would suggest that the prospectus uses language about the Scriptures, Confessions, and Lutheran identity many times and only uses the word diversity once, equity once, and inclusion once. As such, would it not make sense that we read that to mean that anyone should interpret use of those three words through the more frequently referenced Lutheran identity language? It is likely unwise to use the words given the current context, but I’m still not convinced that it is sinister or evidence of a radical left takeover.
For example, I once heard an LCMS pastor use the word “mantra” in a sermon to suggest the value of a phrase that one should remember and return to often. It is sloppy language and, I contend, dangerous, but when I asked him to clarify, he indicated that he did not intend for the word to be interpreted in its religious sense. He was not intentionally teaching Hindu theology. Similarly, I once heard an LCMS district leader cite a Nietzsche quote in a favorable light in a public address. I inquired about whether he thought using such a quote might indicate to some listeners that he endorsed some of Nietzsche’s other ideals, and he responded that people know that he is a Confessional Lutheran and, as a result, will naturally understand that quoting the philosopher in one context does not equate agreement with everything that the philosopher ever wrote. I also started looking back at some of my favorite texts by trusted and beloved contemporary confessional Lutheran theologians, and there is quite often use of vocabulary that originates from and is often equated with other belief systems and worldviews. I found many instances of them not clarifying how they are using the word, leaving room from misinterpretation. Yet, I am confident that these are theologians committed to the Scriptures and Confessions even as there might be wisdom in avoiding such language.
Since open homosexuals are enrolled at CUW and not disciplined for advocating anti-biblical lifestyle; since several students unions “sponsored” by CUW say they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation (something the LCMS does not say of itself); since CUW’s website includes the black student union’s endorsement of antiracist marxists and recommendations of books that openly advocate against patriarchy and the nuclear family, it seems quite obvious what “diversity in all its myriad forms” means. That this is coupled with a commitment to the Scriptures and Confessions is, of course, the same inconsistency our ELCA friends consistently perpetrate.
As often happens, it may be that a good portion of the BoR is unware of the significance of the language it uses and the wickedness of the people and ideologies promoted on its own website by its student unions. But people like Gretchen Jameson are very influential on the leadership of CUW and Dr. Jameson is very aware of all the nuances and contextual definitions of DEI language. She is an openly antiracist CRT promoter.
I will again say it: Dr. Schulz is the boy who pointed to a naked emperor. It is for us to open our eyes and see what is now obviously before us.
The following Marxist book is openly promoted and recommended on CUW’s website: How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi. Google it. It is outrageously racist, anti-capitalist, an erasure of history, an enemy of Christian teaching on the imago Dei. It is simply absurd to fault Dr. Schulz for pointing out what “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” mean in the context of such material, promoted on CUW’s website. That Schulz did so in the manner of a philosophy professor (i.e. prolixly) is unsurprising and eminently forgivable.
I’m sure the answer is somewhere in the reading, but maybe somebody could cut to the chase for me. Questions: Who elects, or selects a Board of Regents, and what are the criteria? Are they required to adhere to a quia subscription? Do they serve a term, or is it a life-time coronation? If they vacate their seat for any reason, do they take a boat-load of money with them?
Perhaps we, the rank and file, are ultimately responsible for all or most of this, because we don’t want to make a fuss.
Thank you for the reply. My comments are simply regarding truth claims in the article by Dr. Schulz, a philosopher theologian with two earned doctorates who cares deeply about nuance, word choice, and Truth. We can have concern about CUW while also acknowledging that the article was a direct judgment on the motives and intent of the Board members, which includes the south wisconson district president and many others elected at the district and synodical conventions (not to mention the four other district presidents serving the board in an advisory role). It is one thing to write that there is a problem at CUW and another to set forth accusations at specific people like the board, and to claim that they have no interest or hint of evidence in seeking out a faithful next president.
I see no judgment on the motives of all the individual Board Members in Dr. Schulz’s article. He specifies committees. And committees that signal for a president who champions diversity in all its myriad forms (even as you have Ibram Kendi promoted on their website!) need to be called out. Besides this, membership on a Board/committee entails ownership, approval, and knowledge of what that committee/Board does, unless the Board/committee member objects by vote or publicly. This is “implied consent” and is standard understanding for Boards.
I could say that I would have written the article differently if I were Schulz. But that is saying too much. Of course I would have. It’s irrelevant. He called out corruption and we need to stand behind him.
My last comment was significantly edited, removing important points (none of which called out specific people or mentioned them by name) that illustrated key ideas. In that spirit, I ask that the moderator(s), who I now know to be changing the words of commenters (at least mine), that they remove all of my comments. I now have no confidence that what is written in a comment on this website actually reflects the words of the person who initially wrote it. I am done with the St. John the Steadfast blog. As a confessional Lutheran, my eyes are now being opened to the manipulation and tactics that I consider inconsistent with the Scriptures and the Confessions.
@Emerson – having been the only active moderator on the site that I know of, I can tell you that I have not edited any comment you have posted.
I suspect there are problems at the universities. Ignoring his warning in the face of his suspension is foolish.
A friend of mine has a son who is a newly minted LCMS pastor that embraces some of the racial justice views of being woke. This being the case it appears there is a serious issue with these philosophies entering the clerical ranks.
Is Dr. Gregory Schulz related to Dr. Wallace Schulz?
Kevin C, I would like to briefly address your opening remark. As Lutherans, we believe (at least I do) that all vocations are God-given and true callings. Stay-at-home moms, piano teachers, public school teachers, social workers, construction workers, done by a faithful Christian are doing God’s work and living according to God’s plan. My faithful Lutheran daughter may not be studying to be a deaconess or private Lutheran school teacher, but her contribution to the world as a child of God is no less than a Pastor’s, missionary’s, or DCE’s. Gaining this understanding of vocation was one of the many paradigm-shifting revelations I had on becoming LCMS.
Good point, Shelley Dorman.