An Open Letter On United Lutheran Seminary
An Open Letter to the Current Board and Constituents of United Lutheran Seminary
Dear Colleagues,
I have been incredibly hesitant to comment publicly on United Lutheran Seminary’s recent controversies and actions out of respect for current leaders there and because I am standing at a distance. Yet because events there have been not only heartbreaking but also, I believe, detrimental to the status and standing of Lutheran theological education in the Northeast, I have chosen to share some of the questions I have. They are, I want to emphasize, questions. This tragic series of events has reminded me to avoid rushing to judgment and to give leaders the opportunity to answer. At the same time, much of what I have heard is so troubling that I want to share some of that as a prelude to questions that I suspect I am not alone in holding.
At the center of all of these matters are questions about what led up to the Board’s recent and dramatic personnel decisions. In particular: the rationale provided by the current Board for President Latini’s firing has been a leadership role she held approximately two decades ago while in her twenties in a group whose views she has disavowed for years. While I am sure this contributed to creating a difficult environment for Dr. Latini and the Board, recent reports cast doubt on this as the actual precipitator of Board action. Indeed, then Bishop and now Acting President James Dunlop reportedly told other bishops at the ELCA Conference of Bishops that he believed the whole thing was a “lynching.” As unfortunate as that word-choice may have been, it nevertheless demonstrates a level of support for President Latini – this well after all the revelations of her past and timing of the disclosure were public – that makes it hard to understand his later role in spearheading the movement both to remove her and to force the resignation of Board Chair Elise Brown.
So, what happened? What turned a staunch defender of Dr. Latini into a primary advocate for her dismissal and eventual occupant of her position?
One possibility that I have heard from several folks involves a rather troubling report that a Board member previously affiliated with LTSG conducted a selective interview with ULS staff, the results of which were instrumental in the Board’s deliberation. It was selective in that it was only with disgruntled employees, did not include those employees who supported President Latini, and was focused almost exclusively on some current and previous Gettysburg-affiliated staff and faculty and thereby ignored nearly the entire Philadelphia campus. From those interviews, he compiled what he described as “thirty pages” of notes containing multiple accusations that called nearly every element of President Latini’s tenure into question and that also included damning reports of some of the Philadelphia campus-based staff. These accusations seem to have formed the basis of the Board’s ultimate action but were never provided to Dr. Latini or the Philadelphia-based staff, in spite of their repeated requests to see those notes. Not only that, but when Dr. Latini attempted to respond to many of the accusations which she had heard about (but not been able to read) in a document she composed and delivered to the Board, that document was not entered into the minutes of the Board despite her request, potentially in order to keep it from public review.
For these reasons, several folks for whom I hold great respect have concluded that these actions – construed as retribution for personnel decisions Dr. Latini had made regarding several Gettysburg campus-based staff – were what prompted not only the firing of Dr. Latini but also the resignation of a number of Board members, most of whom were previously affiliated with LTSP and who perceived the treatment of ULS’s president as egregious.
So, my questions:
Did the ULS Board authorize a Board member to conduct interviews of any staff, let alone select staff? If not, why were those accusations admitted for consideration of the Board? Further, why were they never shared in written form with Dr. Latini and the other Philadelphia-based staff?
If any of this is true, how does the current Board imagine repairing relationships with the LGBTQIA community when many of their understandable and urgent concerns were not addressed in conversational settings and when little opportunity was provided to discuss them in an open, affirming, and caring environment but instead were used largely as a pretext to exact retribution on Dr. Latini for personnel decisions that I would argue were as necessary and justified as they were unpopular to some previous and current Gettysburg-affiliated administrators and Board members?
Similarly, how does the current Board imagine restoring relationships with the African-American community associated with ULS, particularly as represented by the Urban Theological Institute, when their very strong support of Dr. Latini was largely ignored? Students and staff of color have voiced significant concerns in recent weeks about a severe lack of cultural competence demonstrated particularly by some of the previous and current staff affiliated with the Gettysburg campus. Why have these ongoing concerns been largely ignored when the Board was so quick to dismiss Dr. Latini for beliefs she had long disavowed? Relatedly, is it true that the current Acting President, in a meeting including several African American staff, said, “We’re not going back to Egypt, and we’re not eating any more watermelon?” Having worked with Bishop Dunlop, I find this difficult to comprehend and certainly don’t want to believe it, but I do think this question deserves an answer.
Further, how does the current ULS Board imagine restoring confidence in the constituency associated with LTSP when no rationale was provided for the resignation of Board members associated with this constituency? Indeed, I have heard the recent actions of the Board described as a “hostile-takeover” of ULS by Gettysburg-affiliated Board members. Given that five generations of my family graduated from Gettysburg Seminary, and even more because of the excellent working relationship I had with LTSG Board members and administrators, I also find this difficult to believe. Yet an increasing amount of evidence makes a case that is difficult to dismiss.
For that matter, and finally, how does the Board imagine retaining the confidence of the constituency associated with LTSG when the status and standing of staff at ULS no longer depends upon outcomes – outstanding admissions numbers, significant progress in advancement – but rather is largely determined by one’s relationship with former administrators? Gettysburg has a long and proud tradition of high standards and the expectation of exceptional outcomes, yet recent staffing decisions by the Board and Acting President undercut that tradition by creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of, at best, a small-family system and, at worst, an unseemly cronyism.
I ask these question because I see little evidence that the Board recognizes that it has left the reputation of Dr. Latini in tatters and greatly damaged her future career prospects by allowing — if not promoting — slanderous and inaccurate portrayals of her. They have also damaged the reputation of other ULS Board members and staff. Not only does this open the school to untenable liability risks, but it is uncharitable in the extreme and does not help us become the institution that I believe we had hoped to be.
For these reasons, and for the sake of more open conversation and more salutary healing and forward movement, I will share not only these questions but also several hopes:
- I hope documentation of the Board’s actions, and specifically including the “30 pages of notes” of accusations, are made public;
- I hope that Dr. Latini’s response can be made available so that the ULS community can hear another side of the story;
- I hope that current ULS staff are assessed on the basis of their ability and performance, not their association with former President Latini or, for that matter, other former or current administrators;
- I hope that others who have knowledge of these events, including former Board members, will be invited to add their witness so that more of the material events and stories may be made public;
- I hope that all supporters of ULS will demand a level of openness and honesty from the current Board and administration that avoids brushing all of this under the rug in the name of expediency but allows true conversation, grief, reconstruction, and healing;
- I hope that the ULS community will take care in reviewing statements, views, and positions on these matters – including my own shared here! – before making judgments; and
- I hope and trust that the whole of the United Lutheran Seminary community will hold our beloved school and its leaders in prayer.
Yours in Christ,
David
David,
Thank you for your voice here. I join you in sharing these concerns and asking these questions. As an LTSP alumnus, and your partner in helping to form ULS, I am concerned about the future of an institution that has been scandalized – perhaps beyond repair. Let’s hope the ULS Board takes your questions seriously, and works toward true transparency and a future that supports the Church and its leaders. Peace.
David, you are using 2nd and 3rd hand information to make your assertions. Many of which are not accurate. You are not here and should respect those there to hold folks accountable. This is a damaging post that risks further dividing an institution that is fragile – much of which you and Michael Cooper-White caused. You should have stayed quiet. I have respected you but this is too much.
I agree with Karyn’s comments. Without knowing all facts David should not have written his blog. Not only that he and Michael let down both the Seminaries when they decided to merge them without properly consulting the faculties of both the Seminaries. They kept the faculty in the dark. And now he is talking about justice in his blog for Dr. Latini?
With all due respect, I struggle with reading this and with your calling out of secretive actions and taking one schools viewpoint over the other. As a student that was on campus when the creation of ULS was first announced it was with a complete air of secrecy. Also as a person affiliated with the Gettysburg Seminary, I lost count of the number of times I heard “well it’s a justice issue because Philly doesn’t have….”. You were part of setting the tone to make two great institutions mirror one and it was not the one in Gettysburg.
Pastor Lose,
I’m struggling to understand where the value is in this open letter. I am a current student at ULS and your letter beings no value to the conversation as far as I can see. It is full of hearsay and ways we are taught not to speak in a healthy community. I don’t see in this letter any attempt to help bring healing to a starting to repair institution or to the folks currently working through this whole mess.
if this statement had ended with the first sentence, it would have been appropriate. I hope those who ponder this note recognize how unprofessional and unethical it is: a clear trespass of professional boundaries. I hope that among other things, those who read this letter recognize how much of what is presented is hearsay, which rarely illuminates, but certainly does stoke the fires of mistrust. I also hope people notice how much is not said about secrecy, and other issues that led many of us to lose trust in Seminary leadership.
There is wisdom to the church standard that we don’t comment publicly on calls we have left, nor on the ministry of those who take our place. I wish you would have followed it.
There is additional wisdom in the church truism that “people are saying” is never a healthy way to start a conversation. I wish you had heeded it.
Because this post reads like a perfect “what not to do when you leave a call and why” example for current seminarians.
Thank you for your reply
I agree with Lura’s response.
Thank you! As a current student, I really appreciate it
Thank you Lura.
First of all, I am a huge fan. Thank you for all you do.
Secondly, the only accountability I can see for David Lose is the Mount Olivet Church Council. Here’s the link if you want to share it with others.
http://www.mtolivet.org/about-us/congregation-council
The council needs to know what their senior pastor is spending his time on. This makes no sense with all of the needs in such a large congregation.
Nothing about this fits with the legacy of Mount Olivet’s pastoral leadership. David Lose is showing he is not a good fit for this outstanding church.
Thank you again, Lura!
Seriously? “With all of the needs in a large congregation,” a pastor should not be allowed to blog in his free time? I get the questions of propriety of this post, but it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that the pastor of a busy church shouldn’t have any time for himself. That sounds like incredibly unhealthy boundaries and expectations to me.
I have always had quite a bit of respect for you, even though I’ve never worked with you directly, because of the rave reviews of your leadership I’ve heard over the years. However, this blog post concerns me. It feels irresponsible to publish “possibilities” and unverified comments that have not been brought to the people who are being accused of participating in them. This is the blog version of, “People are saying…”. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an alum of Gettysburg and then served on the staff in my first call for three years. I also have trouble believing many of the accusations you lay out here, and I would be devastated to learn that they were true. But did you go to Bishop Dunlop, or to the Board member in question, and ask them directly if they said or did such things? If you did, and you learned that they were true, and then you posted them here because you did not have faith that the institution would be transparent about them, that would be an entirely different story, and I would be grateful for your vulnerability. But you have shared extremely disturbing information that you admit has not been verified by those you accuse, and you should know that your multi-faceted privilege (including your gender, your race, your status as a public figure and pastor, and your role in the merger) allows you to make such claims in a forum that you control and have them accepted as fact. The students, alumni, faculty, staff, and supporters of ULS and the former LTSG are owed an apology for this egregious error in discernment on your part.
A quick correction: the statement that Bishop Dunlop is alleged to have made is: “I feel like this [situation at the Seminary] is like the Israelites who wanted to return to Egypt because the watermelon is better.”
Whether Bishop Dunlop actually said these precise words or not has yet to be confirmed in public. At an open conversation meeting with Philadelphia campus students, Bishop Dunlop was asked about these words. In response, he said that, while he does often reference that story in the Bible (Numbers 11:4-6), he does not recall speaking those particular words.
I can verify that the quote in question has been documented as “I feel like this [situation at the Seminary] is like the Israelites who wanted to return to Egypt because the watermelon is better.”
As far as I can tell, the Good News Translation is the only one that uses the term “watermelons” in Numbers 11 – listing them among several other items. If he focused in on that term in that context then it’s a substantive problem.
Unlike recent trends, we don’t need another head hunt. What we all need is real and substantive practices of confession and forgiveness. If we had done that at the beginning of the whole mess we might have seen a system that was healing instead of repeating.
Dr. Lose….I knew and respected your work before and during your presidency at LTSP and have often been a defender of it. This post is inappropriate. When you finish a call or a leadership position in ministry, you give thanks for whatever blessings you shared in your season in ministry together and you move on. Healthy boundaries dictates that you don’t comment publicly on your successors in leadership. You know better and your predecessors did not publicly do that to you. Your use of hearsay in this post is shameful and wrong. And your post exploits the pain of the ULS LGBTQ community and UTI community for your own agenda. Very disappointing.
Thank you, David, for your response to the situation at ULS. I have been sitting on the sidelines, waiting for things to calm down. You have raised questions I also have. I was disappointed with the way the board handled the situation . I was also greatly disappointed in the way the board treated Dr Latine and Pastor Brown. This cannot, at this point, be swiped under the carpet. Thanks for you response! Blessings!
Paul
David, you should have remained “incredibly hesitant” rather than showing such incredibly poor judgment in making this post, particularly given your former call, much less your current one. There may be other information that should be made public in the ULS situation, but you are not the one to do it, and certainly not in this vague, suggestive, rumor-laden way. You’re entitled to your viewpoints, but I’m bewildered by your ill-considered decision to circulate this in any fashion.
I am disappointed by the temerity of your post given the assertions which you yourself say are not substantiated. But in particular right now, I am severely disturbed on behalf of my siblings in the church that as a white male of privilege you co-opted the word “lynching.” This is simply not a word that ought to be thrown around. And what specifically about this day and time has led to your posting after much deep work has been and is being done? I pray that the pain you are projecting will be healed.
With all due respect, this is highly inappropriate for the former President to be commenting on his former call. You should know that this lacks professional integrity.
Feel free to have your own opinions. We all do. However your public opinions don’t help in a time where healing is needed.
I have some questions for you:
What did you intend to accomplish with this post? You seem to base a lot of your arguments on the concept of “people are saying,” something that I’ve never found helpful, whether inside or outside the church.
How is this post upholding, uplifting, and supporting all those who are concerned – in particular, the current students, staff, and faculty of ULS? How are they to focus on their studies (and, in the case of staff and faculty, their leadership) when these types of divisive and speculative posts continue to abound? Not to mention – how can healing begin when these things are still being shared?
On the other hand, you have provided a wonderful example of how *NOT* to respond when someone leaves a call.
Dr. Lose, I have long respected your work as a teacher, preacher, and public theologian. I share your commitment to theological education and your deep desire for ULS to flourish. It is, therefore, all the more painful to read this blog entry. Alas, as I see it, you are modeling bad pastoral boundaries, stirring the pot, speaking from hearsay, and failing to keep the eighth commandment. Having questions and concerns in such a complicated and painful situation is appropriate, but it would have been far better if you had not shared them in this manner. I join you in continuing to hold all involved in prayer.
Still your sister in Christ, Jean
I feel very confused by this letter. I graduated from LTSP in 2007 but have tried to been kept apprised of the ongoing of the seminary via Facebook. I followed many posts by upset, concerned, students caring about particularly the LGBTQ students who felt hurt and betrayed by Dr. Latini’s appointment. Sometimes the things we do even if we later regret them can continue to affect others. Conversion therapy is a pretty awful thing and has led at times to suicide. I don’t know what attracted the seminary to Dr. Latini or why they appointed a Presbyterian for that matter, at a seminary where Lutheran theology was always a pretty big deal. But back to the students. I didn’t see more then a passing mention of the students at all in your letter which I found rather strange. If this was all about some kind of political wrangling between Gettysburg, Philadelphia and an acting President, I guess I wasn’t privy to that information. In any case I see the future to hopefully bring with it healing, more transparency, and better decision making.
“out of respect for current leaders”
“they are, I want to emphasize, questions”
“this… has reminded me to avoid rushing to judgment and to give leaders the opportunity to answer”
“recent reports”
“reportedly told”
“may have been”
“one possibility that I have heard from several folks”
“a rather troubling report”
“several folks”
“construed as retribution”
“if any of this is true”
“I would argue”
“is it true”
“I have heard… described”
“an unseemly cronyism”
“slanderous and inaccurate”
“take care in reviewing statements”
I have three questions for you:
Do you actually hear yourself, when you say and insinuate these uncharitable, contradictory, and extremely unprofessional things???
Are you seriously accusing OTHER persons in the tale of the seminaries/seminary over the past few years of “an unseemly cronyism”? What would you call the persons who are whispering the resentments you poured out here in your ear, if not “cronies”? What would you call the omissions and rationalizations of their behavior in the tale you spun here, and the fact that you chose to spin it at all, if not “unseemly”?
Is the person who wrote this… less a “letter” and more a late-night partisan screed… the same thoughtful, intelligent, fair-minded leader that Mount Olivet thought they were calling?
The Board made their mistake in hiring her not in letting her go. Hearing support for her was irrelevant when she misled the Board and the Board misled the community.
Thank you David! You have captured what is occurring at ULS accurately. These actions by staff and administrators at Gettysburg have absolutely derailed significant progress in advancement and has severely damaged relationships with donors. The donors I have spoken with are gravely concerned about the way Dr. Latini was treated and the failure of the current administration to hold themselves and others accountable for their actions. Thank you for your clarity.
I appreciate your sharing this letter and the care with which you wrote it. New reports, such as the one in The Christian Century, have been confusing. You have fleshed out more of the complexity of what appears to be a tragic story for Dr. Latini, the seminaries, and other stakeholders.
David, I have long admired your thoughtful and compassionate sensibilities. I still do.
May God bring healing to all those wounded by this tumult.
grace & peace,
Paul, a Presbyterian praying for all y’all
Dr. Lose, I have long respected and admired you and have often looked to your posts for wisdom and guidance. I believe that you genuinely wrote this open letter from a place of care and concern for an institution you helped bring into existence. Your prayers for healing for the seminary and it’s students, faculty and leaders are much appreciated. However, I hope that in the future you will model for all those who look up to you how to resolve conflicts and seek healing without relying on hearsay and resorting to triangulation.
As a student of the Seminary who moves between both campuses, I am truly struggling to see how you feel these divisive allegations and incomplete or unsubstantiated statements are pastoral in any way. As someone in a former pastoral role of the Seminary, this seems a clear violation of boundaries having been separated from the Seminary. Everything about this post is what we are told as future pastors not to do. That you chose to go ahead anyway leads me to question your integrity, your intentions, and any pastoral or Community Care you could claim as part of your justification. This is deeply disappointing and wildly unhelpful to a United Lutheran Seminary community that is doing real and intentional work to move forward and rebuild in a constructive way.
Pastor Lose,
As a current first-year student of ULS who is both an African American and a residential student on the Gettysburg Campus, this is hurtful. It is biassed to one campus’s view and places a lot of the blame on what has happened in recent months with President Latini on one campus.
I do not know why you felt the need to post this. It is not helpful in fact it’s harmful, and very clear you do not know what is going on either campus. Especially on the Gettysburg campus, this is very ill-informed and just piles on to a student body in both schools that are just trying to make sense of it all and move forward. So please as a student in his first year just trying to make it through and make sense of it all. Please Stop adding fuel to the fire and starting things that hurt everyone involved
Dr. Lose,
Thank you for your open letter. As a 2nd generation Gettysburg graduate, I appreciate what a 5th generation graduate has to say.
I wish to comment on two of the criticisms you are receiving in the responses:
1) While it is quite true that a pastor is ethically prohibited from commenting publicly about a congregation he or she formerly served as pastor, one should note that a seminary is NOT a congregation. The seminary community is much more broadly defined than a congregation, and includes alumni. The congregations I formerly served do not send me pledge cards soliciting my offerings, but my seminary does send me their financial appeals, because even though I graduated long ago (1977), I am still considered part of the seminary community. Have I no voice in the life of the seminary which thus solicits my support? Does not a former administrator have similar status and privileges? (Or has ULS ceased sending Dr. Lose their financial appeals?)
2) It is difficult not to rely on hearsay when the institution in question provides nothing but hearsay in its apparent lack of transparency. I join you in hoping that ULS will provide clear and authoritative statements to address the hearsay and rumors that undeniably exist.
Allen R. Riethmiller, ’77
Your open letter was not helpful and just added another layer of injury and pain to an already stressed situation. The fact that you have posted this “In the Meantime” says to me that this is more about sensationalism than an honest inquiry to have questions answered. Please direct your questions directly to the board. It serves no purpose to spread rumors and make comments that critique those trying to do the difficult work day by day managing this conflict.
“Given that five generations of my family graduated from Gettysburg Seminary”
——
“How does the Board imagine retaining the confidence when.. the status and standing of staff … is largely determined by one’s relationship with former administrators”
“I hope that current ULS staff are assessed on the basis of their ability and performance”
Gracia Grindal wrote a 15 commandments of preaching. Commandment #2 was: “Never speak of yourself in the tub, shower, or in bed.”
David Lose, this letter will probably add a 16th commandment, or at the very least be taught in the future as “what not to do” after you depart the leadership of an institution.
The truth is very few people care about what David Lose thinks anymore. I am sorry he believes they do. It’s incredibly sad. He could have been a real leader in the church. But this is so telling and such a yawn at the same time. All I can say is here’s a quarter.
Dear Colleagues,
Unlike David Lose, I haven’t been hesitant to comment publicly on United Lutheran Seminary’s recent controversies and actions. Actually, I have been pretty outspoken on these things and I’d like to share why.
When the ULS community was finally informed about Dr. Latini’s past I was asked, by a colleague, to join a group whose goal was to support LGBTQIA students on both campuses. As a LTSP alumna and a queer person, I believed this marginalized group deserved whatever kind of support I and others could offer. The way in which the information about Dr. Latini’s past was disclosed and discussed caused a great deal of damage to the seminary community, but most of all to the LGBTQIA students.
This group was able to mobilize quickly; to be physically and virtually present on both campuses; to advocate for and with students; to speak out and listen; to share, demand, and disseminate information; to send care-packages to students; and act as chaplains. We responded to the needs of the members of the community most affected by the disclosure of information that was kept secret, for almost a year, from the entire community.
This wasn’t a heartbreaking series of events – this was a trustbreaking series of events. This wasn’t a tragic series of events – this was a completely avoidable series of events. The people in power and authority: the Board of Trustees, the search committee, and even Dr. Latini failed to act in the best interest of the seminary. And they didn’t just fail once or even twice – they failed over and over again in how they handled egregious mistake, after mistake, after mistake.
Now, it does seem petty that “the rationale provided by the current Board for President Latini’s firing has been a leadership role she held approximately two decades ago while in her twenties in a group whose views she has disavowed for years,” and it certainly would make one question if there weren’t other more devious reasons for her ouster. The conspiracy theories former LTSP President Lose puts forward seem all the more plausible in this context, except his context is extremely flawed.
Dr. Latini wasn’t fired because 2 decades ago she had a leadership role in an anti LGBTQIA group that validated conversion therapy. She was fired because no one in ULS leadership, including herself, thought it was important enough to mention. This amazing story of her transformation to LGBTQIA ally and advocate became her undoing because it was turned into a secret-not-worth-mentioning until it was forced out into the open.
The questions Pastor Lose asks all seek to do one thing: downplay the gravity of this secret-not-worth-mentioning. If we are convinced that the omission of this part of Dr. Latini’s history wasn’t a big deal then she becomes the victim of this story. He basically says so himself, “I ask these questions because I see little evidence that the Board recognizes that it has left the reputation of Dr. Latini in tatters and greatly damaged her future career prospects by allowing — if not promoting — slanderous and inaccurate portrayals of her.” If we are convinced of this, then the rumors (which, by definition, are false) suggesting alternative facts behind her dismissal and the resignation of board members are given undue credibility.
Is it possible that there were other factors at play? Who knows, but Lose’s blog post isn’t overflowing with evidence, just conjecture that’s causing more brokenness. Even worse, it suggests that the trauma experienced by the LGBTQIA students at ULS couldn’t or shouldn’t have been a legitimate determinant in who got to maintain their positions and who didn’t. And as someone who participated in and was aware of the hard work done by the student support group, especially the leaders and first responders in that group, Lose’s letter to colleagues comes across as an offensive dismissal of LGBTQIA concerns and abilities by a cishet white man who, by all rights, should not have publicly commented on the situation in the first place.
Pastor Christine Therriault-Merkel LTSP ‘98
As we coservatives in the ELCA were told after the 2009 assembly decision: “Get over it!”
Dear Dr. Lose:
For years I have depended on your commentary on Working Preacher and have been delighted to see and hear you at several events. And quoted you, often. And I am deeply dismayed at the sense of power, privilege and obliviousness that prompted you to write an “open letter” in response.
You are not the president of Luther Seminary. Your insistence on making a public comment is perplexing. And you are demonstrating deplorable behavior in making a statement based so heavily on what “people are saying.”
Really? “People are saying,” and you thought it behooved you — I guess in your capacity as a Lutheran Voice For Our Time, to make a statement? I hope, really hope, that you have the grace and dignity to offer an apology. And that apology should be swift, simple, to the point, and without any exculpatory language. I agree with my colleague the Rev. Lura Groen when she says that there should be a guideline for when you should write an open letter — and that 95% of the flow chart should lead to “Don’t do it.” And with my colleague the Rev. Clint Schnekloth when he points you to a proposed 16th commandment.
Thank you for weighing in, David. I am so grateful for your courage and willingness to face the inevitable internet backlash and potential social media assault (which also contributed significantly to the whole situation and decimated Dr. Latini and Rev. Brown). This has been heartbreaking and horrifying to watch unfold. I continue to hold Dr. Latini, Rev. Brown, and ULS in fervent prayer.
Perhaps it is time to move on. One cannot change the past… May we all find within us the ability to align ourselves with the Lord’s will going forward in this situation, and trust that God can redeem anything. Even this painful situation. Shalom. Be well.
Dr. Lose,
As a student of ULS and member of the LGBTQIA community, it gravely saddens me that you would find it pastorally appropriate to post something that is so damaging to a community that was trying to figure out how to heal itself. This community has gone through and is still going through such trauma on both campuses and the last thing this community needs is for ex-leadership and someone who is supposed to be a pastor, to throw more fuel on the fire and re-open wounds. Shame on you for causing pain and not contributing to healing.
I have waited before posting to try to understand what may be your feelings and motivations in writing what you have. Is this about your own ego as the former president of one of the preceding institutions? Because surely, if what you wanted was transparency and integrity from the institution, you would have showed that same honor and engaged in direct and open dialogue with the community, rather than about them right?
What I have learned through this process is that if you want to be shown honor, integrity, and respect by others, you must first show it yourself. This honor is when we can recognize and see the piece of God with each other. Speaking hearsay and slander about a person(s) is not the honor that I was taught in my life, my faith, and my seminary classes. I hope that this honor can be restored.
Alas, you should re-visit Luther’s explication of the 8th commandment, to whom do you believe you are cloaking in your honor?
Dr. Lose asked questions, yet no answers were provided. He and Dr. Latini are two of the finest servants of the church I have ever known. Most of these comments are an embarrassment to the church of Christ and its mission. Questions remain unanswered.
from Leonard Sweet:
Worst place for a serious discussion of any issue anymore? Public arena. Social media sets a fixed-plate menu. First, obligatory righteous-indignation cocktail. Next, revolving appetizers of wounded outrage and victimhood. Then, unending appetite for public shaming. Finally, an eco-chamber that quickly becomes a gas chamber for anyone who triggers the death dismissal by even one “wrong” word.
This post is juvenile in its inception and presentation. It reads like the rant of a junior high student still pouting long after everyone else has moved on. If you want to help Dr. Latini, how about writing a post that focuses on her leadership skills and accomplishments? Clearly she possesses many gifts that would benefit the church and the world. Instead you attempt to settle your own scores from your failed leadership by hiding behind her pain. For those who know you well, this is not at all surprising. I’m just glad the rest of the church is seeing you for who you are – clearly and in your own words. Lord have mercy.
It’s great (NOT) to read from “Christians” accusations of a fellow human being who is weighing in with an opinion on a public matter (read PUBLIC matter). Most of the respondents above seem to be unable to witness to Christ as a disciple on this public (read PUBLIC) forum. I’m ashamed at what is coming out of the ELCA recently. Y’all need to repent…NOW!
Wow. I thought some of the comments above were self-righteous. You, dude, tak the cake. Congrats!
You are right, Dude! I’m as self-righteous as anyone…including you. It’s time to repent and listen to Jesus’ GOOD News.
The culture around us is “dechurching” at an accelerating rate, throwing all of us into the deep end of an ecclesial darwinic revolution. It comes as little surprise that this pressure brought great stress onto systems like our seminaries, revealing how fragile they actually are despite their prior histories. I appreciate the questions brought forth in this letter even as I question if ULS can pivot quickly enough to be relevant in its changing context. Watching from afar and with some experience in managing a merger, I give ULS about a 30% chance of survival given all that leans against them.
What would a failed merger look like? The schools somehow separating again? The whole thing closing? Something else?
Selling the properties and going out of business type of failed merger. Seminaries have evolved into preparing managers of institutional legacies, something that only works in steady state systems. Forty percent of Gen Z, now in high school, self identifies as atheist. That suggests something like 80+ percent overall of that generation is likely functionally non-believing. While the board works on massaging egos and responding to indignant emails and letters, the culture hurtles forward into becoming like the UK. It will take, IMHO, nothing less than a renewed awakening to revive the church and I am not convinced ULS will get passed its distractions to be of any help. Your mileage may vary.
Brian Hughes is spot on in his comments. Unless the ELCA culture focusses on the Gospel alone (and not the sociological, etc.) to train folks at the seminary level, its relevance collapses. All the in-fighting is just another day at the office. The LCMS makes more sense.
Thanks, but …
Each Lutheran body has its own challenges.
true that…
Wow Dr Lose!
Thank you for your thoughts and questions! It takes a lot of courage to speak ones mind. There are several in these comments who have at many different times and different causes raised up their voices. I am sure you knew the consequences in posting such an open post on your personal blog.
Having been away from the community since the change to the institution it is now, I only know of a handful of persons involved. And as far as the rules about not talking about a place once you left it, is new to me. Oops! There are a lot of rules I have not been made aware of, until I do something that is not pleasing to the hierarchy and then I am told of “a rule”.
Me and my people know very well what it feels like to live .”..in the meantime”. There is a serious racial divide at the seminary. Has been since I attended, and had culminated during my serious illness, which culminated in my permanent disability.
If I had a question, it would be what is pastoral care? And was pastoral care extended to all parties involved? I doubt it.
Everything we do is fraught with mistakes and blunders. I harbor you no ill will for speaking your mind. I thank God you had the courage to do so.
As quotes are flying around, I might as well add my own:
“All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” Julian of Norwich (1342–1416)
Blessings!
I was a student at Gettysburg in the mid-1960’s before moving to Canada where I finished Seminary and was ordained. Gettysburg gave me a lot of gifts which I passed on in my 47 years of pastoral ministry. I grieve over what has happened at ULS recently, but I do have one observation. Even in these days of church decline the pastor’s role is not to be “mothered” by the congregation one serves, but to be a “creative lover” even when there are difficult members in those churches. I hear the word “pain” used a lot by the students–surely they have authentic concerns. But bearing pain is what the theology of the cross is all about. I hope all concerned can grow through their pain and emerge as better persons. My best wishes to you all!
Barry…I was there with you and other students, 1962-1968. Thanks for your notes about suffering and the theology of the cross. I have grieved over what has happened to LTSG in this 21st century. Perhaps that is why, at least in part, that I am now NALC. Policies of the ELCA have overruled their biblical and theological principles.
All you need to do is put the match to the gasoline and …! The church continues to be a battleground instead of a healing place. Is it any wonder mainline churches are dying?
I came upon this while trying to gain understanding because of the pain of a dear friend who is personally involved. I found it helpful. I understand it as opinion based on not being there, not as FACT set in stone. And I greatly appreciate your input. I am so sorry you got ‘holy hell’ for sharing it.