You can read it all here. I know nothing of the school or of all that led up to this decision. I only know that it is about time that church institutions recognized that they cannot at the same time laud their churchly ties (for fund raising and student recruitment) and deny church teaching and flaunt their independence from church oversight. It is a good thing that this is being reinforced in the Roman Church. Could there be others to follow? Who would know? Not me. But as a Lutheran it galls me that there are many such Lutheran institutions of higher learning who promote their Lutheran legacy but deny church teaching, brag about their independence from any oversight of teaching or practice, and then cash in on those so-called Lutheran credentials for endowments and buildings and student recruitment.
We may not put a lot of budgeted cash into our Lutheran colleges and universities anymore but we as Lutheran church bodies give them access to our donors and our kids. Maybe it is time we stopped these schools from cashing in while glorying in their disagreement with fundamental church teaching and faithful church practice.
I am not pointing any fingers right now but simply making a general observation. Perhaps it would do us well if we had a mechanism for saying that this school or that no longer bears the right to be called Lutheran. If we cannot do that officially, then we can unofficially treat some of them as high priced legacy schools so distant from the church they purport to serve that they have become secular institutions (like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton). Let them stand or fall on their own merits without the veil of legitimacy that their Lutheran identity has given them. Well... rant off...
This seems a recurring theme among top colleges. Step one faithful Christians build and fund an institution of higher learning. Step two Christian students enroll, excel and build the schools' reputations. Step three 'independent' aka agents of darkness infiltrate. Remind me of the awesome universities founded and funded by atheists.
"[T]here are many such Lutheran institutions of higher learning who promote their Lutheran legacy but deny church teaching, brag about their independence from any oversight of teaching or practice, and then cash in on those so-called Lutheran credentials for endowments and buildings and student recruitment."
"Maybe it is time we stopped these schools from cashing in while glorying in their disagreement with fundamental church teaching and faithful church practice."
"I am not pointing any fingers right now but simply making a general observation."
Well, maybe more like "a sweeping observation."
But I think some names can be named, at least for general discussion, given the public record of past unionistic, syncretic, perverse, and other heterodox presentations and practices accepted and publicized out of these schools (except for occasional perfunctory wrist-slapping).
Obviously, the Lufauxran Valparaiso Univ. comes first to mind. Then there's Concordia-Chicago, Concordia-Portland, Concordia-Mequon, and Concordia-Bronxville.
Perhaps all of this will be cleaned up in the Koinonia Project.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but I would prefer to see the Church regain its grip on these colleges and bring them back into the service of the Gospel. That would require a lot of effort, but think of what could be accomplished by doing so!
Another thing that really disturbs me about the Concordia colleges is their low academic standards. I feel for students paying top dollar to go to a synod school that isn't even as selective as Texas A&M. I looked them up online and was pretty surprised to see the calibre of students they admit. There should be at least one of our colleges that is selective so that bright students could at least consider going there. As it is, you would be shooting yourself in the foot even if you graduate with a 4.0.
The first thing is to heavily admonish the staff of the LCMS colleges not to give into secular, liberal influences, especially the gay advocacy groups trying to help troubled young people. Counseling from teachers or designated church workers is the best tool, but if we allow the advocacy groups onto our campuses, then we give tacit approval to their entire agenda.
Next, give pre-sem, teaching, and DCE students as much moral, financial, and mentoring help as they need. Congregations really need to examine the workload given to the students once they are installed in their offices. Should teachers be required to be present at every extra-curricular activity? Is there a proper mix of work and family life, even for church workers?
In the colleges, could the teaching objectives be updated? Bloom's Taxnomy of objectives doesn't cover multimedia, and is too rigid in the use of target words.
Post a Comment