After prayerful consideration, we believe that it is our responsibility to review your job description with you. It has become apparent that your perception of your duties here at Concordia exceed the responsibilities for which you were hired. Your position xxxx is a staff position xxxx. It is also the responsibility of all staff members to support the xxxx team and spirit of collaboration which we try so hard to nurture. None of us has the right to approach any of our other team members judgmentally. We also believe that it is important that you understand the limits and boundaries of your position.
I know that this causes you great internal conflict, since you consider the proclamation signed by the CUS presidents to be a mandate for you and everyone at CSP: In accordance with the doctrine of the two kingdoms, all faculty strive to faithfully bring Lutheran theology into interaction with their various academic disciplines while respecting the integrity of those disciplines. Likewise, in other campus arenas, faculty, staff and administrators will seek to apply Lutheran theology within their campus vocations. It is truly admirable that you take this message so to heart and strive to fulfill this mandate whenever possible. I know that you also receive positive reinforcement from some of your students in the theology courses you teach, even those who began your course with some skepticism; kudos to you for that. And since you are then in a “faculty” role, it is understandable that you take this directive very “seriously.” In this role you are advocating for the mission of Concordia, St. Paul. But, since we are a Liberal Arts College and not a Bible College, it is also our responsibility to ensure xxxx an open, neutral, safe space. We are not here to judge or proselytize; but rather it is our duty to respect and honor the various belief systems that we may encounter. It is, therefore, your responsibility to take your “faculty” hat off and put your-xxxx hat on when you are working xxxx.
It also has been pointed out to me that you need to have a better understanding of the limits of your role here at Concordia, both as faculty and xxxx. I have been reminded on more than one occasion that your tendency to give advice or attempt to interfere at the administrative level of the university is not appreciated. I’m remembering how difficult it was for you to support the objective of the Muslim Journeys grant, which was to promote a greater understanding of the Muslim community. I believe that our conversation with xxxx helped and I also believe that eventually you understood the value of the program. We have also had numerous conversations regarding how extremely difficult it was for you to support the gay/lesbian community, even though our vision statement states: All are welcome. I will also admit that there is a very real tension between the Missouri Synod stand on homosexuality and the open acceptance that some segments of society seem to be moving towards, just as there is a tension here on campus when Concordia states: all are welcome vs. the discrimination that xxxx experienced. I believe that this is a tension that will always exist at CSP and at times, walking the tightrope and straddling these two worlds requires a delicate sense of balance. It is a balance that I believe you need to begin practicing more actively. While your role as faculty encourages you to explain and promote the Missouri Synod perspective, this is not a role that you may embrace xxxx. Your role as xxxx also does not include advising your VP or the President. It has been made very clear to me that this is not appreciated.
It has also been made very clear to me that your attempts to suggest, guide, and redirect the decisions made by the higher administration here at CSP are not appreciated. I believe you would be wise to place more trust in their wisdom.
I hope that this has been helpful for you.
Analysis
The idea of judging being out of bounds is nonsensical—since the tenor of the whole document is extremely judgmental. It is a certain type of judgment that is being ruled out—that which might indict secular causes of the world and unbelievers living in sin. We all make judgments—and we should. The question is: do we make them rightly on the basis of God’s Word?
The words of this document that undermine the presidents’ public statements show the divide. Public relation offerings do not imply this type of administrative interaction. The statement “since we are a Liberal Arts College and not a Bible College” shows the self-understanding this former leader had of Concordia, St. Paul. It is not to form Christians in the Lutheran doctrine, but sprinkle a bit of Lutheran verbiage and tradition upon what is basically a generic private university education.
Respect and honor is due the persons we encounter—but not the false and damning teaching they might hold and espouse. The Word of God judges—it is not man’s judgments that are significant. The reverse is to bow down to what is opposed to Christ. It is egregious that a person teaching theology is told to not to be too doctrinal in using that theology. To respect all “belief-systems” is far different than treating the misled system-holders with human decency—it requires muzzling the truth of Christ and bending the knee to every false religious tenet. The rule and authority of Satan (through false gospels and teachings) is the issue. Does Christ reign or not? This should not be a hard question for the Christian, but in practice institutions with bureaucratic authoritarianism drown out the voice of Christ revealed in Scripture.
The specific concerns exposed by this document are not minor: false religion (Islam) and the sin of accepting an unnatural sexuality. If the so-called “tension” is never resolved, so the truth of God cannot overrule an error society has accepted—then the “truth’’ is so neutered it cannot be the truth of God that rules—and that every believer is called to abide in. A doctrine denied in practice, but upheld in theory—shows more deceit and hypocrisy than just denying it outright. A synod and its institutions cannot play both sides: Christ and that which is opposed Him. To have nice-sounding press statements without letting the scriptural truth make accurate judgments on all our words and actions is to deny the truth and Christ’s authority. That is the issue the Missouri Synod faces. Can we serve the truth only with our lips—and harden our hearts against what we say we believe in our daily lives and decisions?
The worship of human hierarchy and institutional bureaucracy must lead to downfall. It was made known in this leaked document that this former employee’s concerns were not welcome and indeed he was punished for them. But the Word of God is not a respecter of persons or offices—whether administrator, president, pastor, or bishop. The moment man-made position trumps the clear call of God’s Word—the battle has been lost. Pray that all those in church leadership positions think not too highly of themselves, put aside their worldly pride, and serve Christ from their heart. We must heed the Word and its call to repentance as from God—no matter the human voice that utters it. Absolute trust in fallible human authority is in direct contradiction to the unlimited authority of Christ who is risen from the dead for all sinners. —ed.
Christian News 