Why would you need to say this? I grant that it’s scary; I grew up in St. Louis and absolutely love the seminary grounds, Luther Tower, and the chapel, etc. However, there can be different uses for the old glorious campus. We are a confession of usefulness, given how many times the words “use,” “useful,” and “what is the use” is written in our Confessions. Perhaps gatherings, retreats, seminars, and speaking/musical events and trainings are the future. Have you also considered the deep sadness in men & women who have felt called into ministry or diaconal ministry, but not been able to afford or arrange going to a residential program? This is real sadness and hurt. Why don’t we listen to each other and grow through this?
This is truly the case, Joel Dieterichs. The seminary presidents, no doubt harried by their boards of regents and subsets of alumni, have both been reactive in response and inhospitable to anything but "step back and shut up" as the CMPL posits alternatives to the current formation and development options for pastoral training.
The over-stress on residential training has always at its root been about real estate, that is, the absolute necessity of two midwestern seminary campuses (campi?) and all the buildings and substructures on X amount of acreage in Fort Wayne and St. Louis.
So the stiff-arm must be applied not only to an entire program and its faculty, but even to speaking about alternate opportunities in any public forum (viz. the Ahlmann apology). Using a bogus definition of the Synod's dissent process as a cudgel only demonstrates how frightened the Synodical leadership is when it comes to this necessary but hard conversation.
The solutions are simply not that difficult. Bring ILT in as a collaborative partner and deal with the real estate along the way. Move the ball down the court for the good of the church body.
Speaking of responses that are less than helpful in projecting best construction. Ascribing motives of unnamed cabals to trope-like greed, bogus bullying cudgels, fear, and an unwillingness to acknowledge (a singular view of) reality? This hardly seems like an invitation to open collaboration.
But, perhaps, it is a more honest statement regarding the increasingly binary gulf facing us.
Good to hear from you, Glen! The cudgeling is in the statements of the seminary presidents which is stiff-arming conversation. The conversation hasn't begun because it's been stopped before beginning. I still think it's all about real estate, legacy real estate. But I'm from New York, where everything is about real estate. In life, the participants are all from the same denomination, and many of them were faculty and staff inside the seminary walls. It's a fraternal circumstance meant - as is the case in pretty much all such programs across the country - to provide more non-residential options with integrity.
Well, as Dr. Kloha brought up, online education is very excellent now and it’s not like we only have green-lettered emails from 1995. A whole lot can be done online with video conferencing. so why let people languish because you/others want a traditional format of Seminary training?
Fallacy after fallacy in these statements. Online education may be excellent for some purposes, but you have not made a case that it is more excellent for this purpose. "Let people languish" brings in needless appeal to emotions. Assuming that people are suffering because others "want" something is ascribing negative motives to these "others". Making a case why online education is objectively better instead of making fallacious statements would do much to further a mature discussion of this topic.
Well, as this a discussion thread and not an academic paper, emotional backdrops and a bit of color are surely allowed, yes? And, in his written response, Dr Kloha already made the more factual and relevant case for online education. You can call how people suffer to be fallacious, but I would ask that you consider its relevance since what resulted from traditionalism (in not all, but too many cases) has been that a ministry, missionary, mission, or congregation lost out on having a trained worker with Synodicial bona fides / licensing.
The discussion is not about residential vs. online. Both CSL and CTSFW offer online classes to those men enrolled in the SMP program. At the 2023 Convention a resolution passed stating residential is the preferred route, because it offers a superior process of formation, but SMP still gets you there. For the man desiring a "general ordination" after completing SMP, he can continue taking online classes until he has the proper number of credit hours. So why the push for these new programs? How do they improve on what is offered?
This is Absalom sitting at the gate stealing the hearts of the people.
Why would you need to say this? I grant that it’s scary; I grew up in St. Louis and absolutely love the seminary grounds, Luther Tower, and the chapel, etc. However, there can be different uses for the old glorious campus. We are a confession of usefulness, given how many times the words “use,” “useful,” and “what is the use” is written in our Confessions. Perhaps gatherings, retreats, seminars, and speaking/musical events and trainings are the future. Have you also considered the deep sadness in men & women who have felt called into ministry or diaconal ministry, but not been able to afford or arrange going to a residential program? This is real sadness and hurt. Why don’t we listen to each other and grow through this?
This is truly the case, Joel Dieterichs. The seminary presidents, no doubt harried by their boards of regents and subsets of alumni, have both been reactive in response and inhospitable to anything but "step back and shut up" as the CMPL posits alternatives to the current formation and development options for pastoral training.
The over-stress on residential training has always at its root been about real estate, that is, the absolute necessity of two midwestern seminary campuses (campi?) and all the buildings and substructures on X amount of acreage in Fort Wayne and St. Louis.
So the stiff-arm must be applied not only to an entire program and its faculty, but even to speaking about alternate opportunities in any public forum (viz. the Ahlmann apology). Using a bogus definition of the Synod's dissent process as a cudgel only demonstrates how frightened the Synodical leadership is when it comes to this necessary but hard conversation.
The solutions are simply not that difficult. Bring ILT in as a collaborative partner and deal with the real estate along the way. Move the ball down the court for the good of the church body.
Speaking of responses that are less than helpful in projecting best construction. Ascribing motives of unnamed cabals to trope-like greed, bogus bullying cudgels, fear, and an unwillingness to acknowledge (a singular view of) reality? This hardly seems like an invitation to open collaboration.
But, perhaps, it is a more honest statement regarding the increasingly binary gulf facing us.
Good to hear from you, Glen! The cudgeling is in the statements of the seminary presidents which is stiff-arming conversation. The conversation hasn't begun because it's been stopped before beginning. I still think it's all about real estate, legacy real estate. But I'm from New York, where everything is about real estate. In life, the participants are all from the same denomination, and many of them were faculty and staff inside the seminary walls. It's a fraternal circumstance meant - as is the case in pretty much all such programs across the country - to provide more non-residential options with integrity.
Has not feeling “real sadness and hurt” always been the case? What makes this exceptional now, other than perhaps recency bias? 🤔
Well, as Dr. Kloha brought up, online education is very excellent now and it’s not like we only have green-lettered emails from 1995. A whole lot can be done online with video conferencing. so why let people languish because you/others want a traditional format of Seminary training?
Fallacy after fallacy in these statements. Online education may be excellent for some purposes, but you have not made a case that it is more excellent for this purpose. "Let people languish" brings in needless appeal to emotions. Assuming that people are suffering because others "want" something is ascribing negative motives to these "others". Making a case why online education is objectively better instead of making fallacious statements would do much to further a mature discussion of this topic.
Well, as this a discussion thread and not an academic paper, emotional backdrops and a bit of color are surely allowed, yes? And, in his written response, Dr Kloha already made the more factual and relevant case for online education. You can call how people suffer to be fallacious, but I would ask that you consider its relevance since what resulted from traditionalism (in not all, but too many cases) has been that a ministry, missionary, mission, or congregation lost out on having a trained worker with Synodicial bona fides / licensing.
That when you change a little, have the same Scripture and Confessions (as Kloha said), you offer big relief.
Honest question not meant to be snarky or disrespectful. Is this institute connected with Kiesschnick people?
Yes, The Center is an orbiting body in the Kiecshnik allied wing of the Synod.
So was PLI … how long did that last?
The discussion is not about residential vs. online. Both CSL and CTSFW offer online classes to those men enrolled in the SMP program. At the 2023 Convention a resolution passed stating residential is the preferred route, because it offers a superior process of formation, but SMP still gets you there. For the man desiring a "general ordination" after completing SMP, he can continue taking online classes until he has the proper number of credit hours. So why the push for these new programs? How do they improve on what is offered?