Over the past few weeks I have been following this story in Milwaukee, WI. I find it very interesting how this story ended. What happened as this story unfolded was just as interesting.
Marquette University, a Roman Catholic school run by the Jesuits in Milwaukee, WI has been know for its theological education and scholarship in Lutheran circles (e.g. Franz Posset, and Kenneth Hagen), and nationally known for its basketball team just about every March.
For those who are not inclined to read all of the articles, I will do my best to sum up the story.
Back in April, Marquette University extends a contract to Seattle University professor Jodi O'Brien to be dean of Marquette's College of Arts and Sciences.
O'Brien signs the contract and sends it back to Marquette University.
Early May, Marquette rescinds the job offer. Slight problem. O'Brien is a lesbian who has written scholarly works on gender and sexual orientation. Marquette says the reason for this is that some of O'Brien's writings "relating to Catholic mission and identity" made her an unacceptable candidate. (Doesn't anyone do their homework when hiring for a position like this?)
Students and faculty are up in arms. Students protest, faculty protest.
It is revealed that Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee might have told the president of Marquette, Fr. Wild S.J., about O'Brien's background and that this was not an acceptable person to have at the university.
The faculty issues a full page ad in the local papers in Milwaukee and in Seattle saying that this is wrong. Marquette is killing academic freedom.
Others state that the Archbishop has no right to interfere with Marquette, since the school is run by the Jesuits and not the archdiocese. Along with the academic freedom crowd, there is now also the "we are not under the control of the Roman Catholic church" crowd.
Fr. Wild says the Archbishop did not tell him what to do.
It also comes to light that back in 2001 Marquette had offered the same position to another faculty member at Seattle University, who also was an author on gender and sexuality issues. That professor declined the position.
Finally, at the beginning of June, Marquette and Professor O'Brien reach a settlement.
There's the summary.
Here's my question before I start my rant on the Concordia University System.
Was Archbishop Listecki right to step in and talk to Fr. Wild about this hiring decision?
On to my rant . . .
How does this relate to the wonderful world of Lutheranism? Think of it this way. In a Lutheran version of this tale, Marquette would be more along the lines of Valparaiso. An independent college "with historic ties to Lutheranism." The LCMS tries to intercede and have a say as to what is going on, but it never really works out. Slightly different from the Marquette version, where the Archbishop has some influence.
For decades the LCMS has wasted time and money in the hopes of trying to make Valpo more "Lutheran". It just isn't going to happen. Instead of expending that effort to make Valpo more "Lutheran", why hasn't the LCMS tried make the Concordia University System more "Lutheran"? After all, does not the LCMS like to brag that they are the owners and operators of this school system? Yet they act more like absentee landlords.
Insert your favorite Concordia horror story here.
Instead, the schools of the Concordia University System have been left on their own to do what they see fit. There is more academic and religious freedom in the Concordia University System (excluding the seminaries) than most other denominations that run colleges and universities. (Again, insert your favorite Concordia horror story here.)
I know that there is a balancing act that a religious educational institution must perform in order to give their students a viable education, (also make money), yet at the same time hold to their religious heritage (and ownership?). I just haven't seen it throughout this system. I know that the LCMS as a church body has given up financial ownership. Last figure I heard, support from the LCMS to a Concordia amounted to about 1% of that Concordia's budget. I know that the Purple Palace will always be quick to claim any success that a Concordia has, and even quicker to try to distance themselves from a public failure or scandal at a Concordia. (Remember Dr. George Heider at Concordia, River Forest?) The LCMS loses their influence when they don't help to pay the bills. That gives the Concordias less incentive to abide by what the LCMS wants doctrinally. He who has the money, gets to call the tunes.
Either the LCMS should reorganize, maybe even close some of these Concordias, to better concentrate resources on these schools, or loosen their grip and let the Concordias have more control over their destinies. What I mean by "loosen their grip" is to allow the Concordias to appoint a portion of their own regents.
I'm just thinking out loud here. What do you think?
June 16, 2010
June 15, 2010
Truly Ablaze!
Do you think they could recreate this for the convention? Better yet, maybe Ablaze funds could be given to rebuild? A special convention offering perhaps? Here's the link to the story.
June 2, 2010
Long On Words, Short On Action
Ah, Memorial Day has come and gone. The lasts wafts of grill smoke have dissipated. The temperature is starting to get warmer. This can mean only one thing.
Silly season is upon us.
By that I mean The 64th Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
I know that it doesn't start until July, but I figured I'd start a little early.
Actually, compared to those who are running for office, I am starting quite late. I am also late to the game when you think about those who have been writing papers and sending junk mail to convention delegates.
But I digress.
As a famous theologian once said, "Get to the point!"
My point is this: I would like to think that I will not be let down, again, by those who have, and will, make such remarkably Lutheran statements about saving the church, restoring doctrine and liturgy, and people walking together in harmony.
I know, I'm kidding myself.
Just once in my lifetime, I'd like to see people actually take a stand. Not make idle threats if they don't get their way. I would like to see some action. I would like to have people stand up and tell the truth. Make the current leadership give an account of what they have done, or not done. Explain where all the money has gone. Explain where all of these members that were suppose to materialize with their programs are.
In other words, "No more Mr. Nice Guy." Seriously, the current administration doesn't play by the rules, why follow rules that everyone else feels they are not bound by?
I just would like to see a group stand up and say, "Enough is enough!"
Confidential to Jack C. from Michigan - I will not be paying for your drinks this time!
Silly season is upon us.
By that I mean The 64th Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
I know that it doesn't start until July, but I figured I'd start a little early.
Actually, compared to those who are running for office, I am starting quite late. I am also late to the game when you think about those who have been writing papers and sending junk mail to convention delegates.
But I digress.
As a famous theologian once said, "Get to the point!"
My point is this: I would like to think that I will not be let down, again, by those who have, and will, make such remarkably Lutheran statements about saving the church, restoring doctrine and liturgy, and people walking together in harmony.
I know, I'm kidding myself.
Just once in my lifetime, I'd like to see people actually take a stand. Not make idle threats if they don't get their way. I would like to see some action. I would like to have people stand up and tell the truth. Make the current leadership give an account of what they have done, or not done. Explain where all the money has gone. Explain where all of these members that were suppose to materialize with their programs are.
In other words, "No more Mr. Nice Guy." Seriously, the current administration doesn't play by the rules, why follow rules that everyone else feels they are not bound by?
I just would like to see a group stand up and say, "Enough is enough!"
Confidential to Jack C. from Michigan - I will not be paying for your drinks this time!
May 16, 2010
Laugh a Little
Ah, this brought a smile to my face. Let me know if this reminds you of anyone you know.
May 5, 2010
Realistic Options?
The state of Lutheranism in America is messed up. Surprised?
Doesn't take a PhD scholar to figure that out.
Here's a question:
Is it worth leaving?
I mean, is it worth abandoning Lutheranism altogether and going elsewhere?
Would going elsewhere be any better?
If the thought is that "the grass is greener" is the only reason to go, is that even a valid reason?
Wouldn't going to Rome be a step backwards? I doubt that Rome would let one join and let that individual choose a la cart the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church they wish to believe.
Its kind of an "all-or-nothing" thing wherever you go. Unless, of course, you go UCC.
Again, is it worth leaving?
Doesn't take a PhD scholar to figure that out.
Here's a question:
Is it worth leaving?
I mean, is it worth abandoning Lutheranism altogether and going elsewhere?
Would going elsewhere be any better?
If the thought is that "the grass is greener" is the only reason to go, is that even a valid reason?
Wouldn't going to Rome be a step backwards? I doubt that Rome would let one join and let that individual choose a la cart the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church they wish to believe.
Its kind of an "all-or-nothing" thing wherever you go. Unless, of course, you go UCC.
Again, is it worth leaving?
April 29, 2010
Why Do We Hate The Liturgy?
OK, maybe that is an overreaching statement.
There are many congregations that do a wonderful job of using the Order of Service as laid out in a hymnal week in and week out.
I guess a better question would be, "Why do we hate including ceremony with the liturgy?"
I have always thought this. I bring this up now because I was out of town for the Feast of Easter and had the opportunity to worship at a sister LCMS congregation.
I was in awe. There was incense. There were torch bearers, thurifer, crucifer, servers, deacons, sub-deacons. I felt like I was in a special place. I knew that I was in the house of the Lord. What was even better was that it was done with reverence and it was done correctly. I do not understand why people are opposed to these things.
Yes, I know, there are groups out there that love to champion FC Ep. X and FC SD X. I get the impression that they have never read the whole thing. They pick out the parts from the confessions that they like and want to use to justify what they're doing, or are not doing, in the chancel.
Looking at the state of liturgical worship, or lack thereof, in this church body makes one stop and ask this question, "Are we the church of Luther and the Reformation, or are we the church of Karlstadt and the Reformation?"
I have never seen in a CPH catalog a reference book on how to do liturgical ceremony. I am not talking about bits and pieces described in a book on the liturgy. I am saying, there is not a single book out there with pictures and diagrams and the how-to. There are more detailed guides for acolytes and altar guilds than there are for a pastor to have proper liturgical ceremonies included in the order of worship! What are we ashamed of?
In all honesty, I would much rather be confused with the Roman Catholic church in regards to worship, than to be accused of there being no difference with other Protestant church bodies in regards to worship. Is not Lutheranism really Roman Catholicism Reformed?
Why does Lutheranism in America so desperately want to be identified with the Methodists, Baptist and other Protestant descendants of Calvin?
April 28, 2010
The Response You Never Saw
A shout out to fellow blogger Latif Gaba for pointing me to the living definition of hypocritical.
I took the opportunity to try to respond to Rev. McCain, but, surprise, he refused to post it.
This is the blog post in question.
Here is my response. It appears that my response didn't praise and agree with Rev. McCain enough to get posted. Let me know what you think.
Well glory be! I'm not a pastor, but I am a confessional Lutheran! Following your line of reasoning, Rev. McCain, I guess that means I am not bound by your internet encyclical about anonymous blogging, since I am nothing more than a lowly layman.
I find it interesting that you say in your response to Rev. Beisel, "I think we should also be willing to fact [I am guessing you meant "face"] some hard facts and start some “self-policing” among the “confessional” crowd." Help me out here, since I'm just a poor, uneducated, layman. Has there been created a special office for you? Paging through the Synodical Handbook, I didn't see anything along the lines of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Committee on Theology and Church Relations I found, but not your name as the prefect of this committee. I am seriously doubtful that your position at Concordia Publishing House as Publisher and as the Executive Director of the Editorial Department has granted you a special indult for "self-policing" the "confessional" crowd.
My question is this:
By whose authority do you get to play the role of Confessional Cyber Cop?
Feel free to ignore answering that, just as you felt the need to sidestep admitting wrong for making accusations against Rev. Beisel and his former parish.
I do enjoy how only in the LCMS is the 8th Commandment optional.
I also find some humor in how you speak with such authority, time and time again, about your experiences in the parish when the total time you have served a parish as a called pastor is a grand total of two years. To have that many stories about all the things you did really amazes me. This must have been a seriously damaged congregation for you to have experienced so much in only two years.
I also enjoy your hyperbole about all the stories you've heard about pastors who did this or that to their congregation. For almost 18 years you have been working as a bureaucrat, not as a pastor. I do not believe that living vicariously through the stories that you've heard over the years count as parish experience, let alone make you an expert. Furthermore, your views on these issues facing actively serving pastors have been clouded by your previous role as Assistant to the President. In that position, you were privileged to learn about situation that occurred in the parish involving pastors who may, or may not have, been at fault.
I also enjoy the cunningness of your witch hunt in this blog post. It sounds very innocent, "PS – In the spirit of this blog post, if you wish to offer a comment, sign your full name, and location to your remark. I’m trying to encourage the perpetually anonymous-inclined folks here to step out into the light."
Really? This is on par with Rev. Waldo Werning gathering together a list of names to be published in a book in the most unflattering light.
If you were serious about open and honest discussion, you wouldn't have this blog set up to control which comments get posted. I understand you have a reputation to keep and would not enjoy someone being critical of you.
This is why I will keep myself as an anonymous blogger. You have no interest in discussion. You only have an interest in attacking those who do not think like you.
Your actions, statements, and the way you treat other faithful pastors reminds me of my old Greek professor at Concordia River Forest. Rev. Prof. Froehlich said it was like a football game. The Devil and his minions are one team and the confessional Lutherans are on the other. When the confessionals come out on the field, they are tackling themselves, not the Devil.
I took the opportunity to try to respond to Rev. McCain, but, surprise, he refused to post it.
This is the blog post in question.
Here is my response. It appears that my response didn't praise and agree with Rev. McCain enough to get posted. Let me know what you think.
Well glory be! I'm not a pastor, but I am a confessional Lutheran! Following your line of reasoning, Rev. McCain, I guess that means I am not bound by your internet encyclical about anonymous blogging, since I am nothing more than a lowly layman.
I find it interesting that you say in your response to Rev. Beisel, "I think we should also be willing to fact [I am guessing you meant "face"] some hard facts and start some “self-policing” among the “confessional” crowd." Help me out here, since I'm just a poor, uneducated, layman. Has there been created a special office for you? Paging through the Synodical Handbook, I didn't see anything along the lines of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Committee on Theology and Church Relations I found, but not your name as the prefect of this committee. I am seriously doubtful that your position at Concordia Publishing House as Publisher and as the Executive Director of the Editorial Department has granted you a special indult for "self-policing" the "confessional" crowd.
My question is this:
By whose authority do you get to play the role of Confessional Cyber Cop?
Feel free to ignore answering that, just as you felt the need to sidestep admitting wrong for making accusations against Rev. Beisel and his former parish.
I do enjoy how only in the LCMS is the 8th Commandment optional.
I also find some humor in how you speak with such authority, time and time again, about your experiences in the parish when the total time you have served a parish as a called pastor is a grand total of two years. To have that many stories about all the things you did really amazes me. This must have been a seriously damaged congregation for you to have experienced so much in only two years.
I also enjoy your hyperbole about all the stories you've heard about pastors who did this or that to their congregation. For almost 18 years you have been working as a bureaucrat, not as a pastor. I do not believe that living vicariously through the stories that you've heard over the years count as parish experience, let alone make you an expert. Furthermore, your views on these issues facing actively serving pastors have been clouded by your previous role as Assistant to the President. In that position, you were privileged to learn about situation that occurred in the parish involving pastors who may, or may not have, been at fault.
I also enjoy the cunningness of your witch hunt in this blog post. It sounds very innocent, "PS – In the spirit of this blog post, if you wish to offer a comment, sign your full name, and location to your remark. I’m trying to encourage the perpetually anonymous-inclined folks here to step out into the light."
Really? This is on par with Rev. Waldo Werning gathering together a list of names to be published in a book in the most unflattering light.
If you were serious about open and honest discussion, you wouldn't have this blog set up to control which comments get posted. I understand you have a reputation to keep and would not enjoy someone being critical of you.
This is why I will keep myself as an anonymous blogger. You have no interest in discussion. You only have an interest in attacking those who do not think like you.
Your actions, statements, and the way you treat other faithful pastors reminds me of my old Greek professor at Concordia River Forest. Rev. Prof. Froehlich said it was like a football game. The Devil and his minions are one team and the confessional Lutherans are on the other. When the confessionals come out on the field, they are tackling themselves, not the Devil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)