Merklinger, Harold A.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 2 | Issue 3 Article 17-1-1976Theological Education for a Lutheran Church inCanadaHarold A. MerklingerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMerklinger, Harold A. (1976) "Theological Education for a Lutheran Church in Canada," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 1.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss3/1THEOLOGICAL EDUCATIONFORA LUTHERAN CHURCHIN CANADAHarold MerklingerI am honoured to have this opportunity to make this introductory statement ontheological education. What pleases me even more is seeing you here - all of you.Your presence surely speaks well for the Lutheran Church in Canada. For you totake this time to listen to the views of others and to express your own conceptsand expectations on this important subject is most heartening.Added to this is the broad spectrum of representation at this convocation. Werequire and have with us the professional theological educators. Their knowledgeand experience is essential. Ye^, not everyone here is actively engaged intheological education. We have a representation of the products of the seminaryto help us - the pastors. Out of their experience as theological students preparingfor the ministry and now in office they will be able to evaluate how well they weretrained for their work, or how they could have been better equipped. Most of all, Iappreciate the presence of lay people, men and women, who must listen to uspreachers every Sunday. You are the recipients of our ministry. I place a greatdeal of importance and credence in the evaluation of the ministry from the pew.After all, the prime purpose of theological education is to train and assist pastorsto bring Christ to the people and the people to Christ. I anticipate a positive andvaluable contribution from the lay representation. 1 also wish to acknowledge thepresence of past and present representatives of the Boards pf Governors. Out oftheir long experience they have a lot to offer on the subject before us. We need34 Consensustheir input. From their first-hand acquaintance they know what is possible fromthe management and control aspect. Some of us preachers are inclined to bedreamers and idealists. These governors can and, I am sure, will tell us what isworkable or not.The participation of this varied yet balanced representation must surelyproduce concrete results.What 1 am presenting this morning is my own thinking on the subject. I havenot consulted others on the views 1 am presenting. They are my own. Later, thetask force on theological education of which 1 am a member will prepare aposition paper for presentation to the Joint Commission on Inter-LutheranRelationships. 1 confidently look forward to meeting with Pastors Hohm andHuras to produce a plan for the theological education of one Lutheran Church inCanada, when by God’s grace and guidance that comes about.WHY LUTHERAN SEMINARIES IN CANADA?This convocation recognizes the importance of the education and training ofpastors. In fact, it is crucial for the church. As the seminaries go, so goes thechurch. Our pastors need and the Lord’s work demands the best equippingpossible for the ministry.The Lutheran Church in Canada must train its clergy in Canada. That is basicfor its development and growth.The pioneer pastors in North America realized very early in their activities onthis side of the Atlantic that clergy must be trained in the country where they areto serve. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-1782) took as his motto EcclesiaPlantanda: the church must be planted. That planting included not only theorganizing of a synod free from European control but also the training of pastorson North American soil. Unfortunately, Muhlenberg’s initial plans for atheological institution disappeared in the smoke of the Revolutionary War. Priorto the founding of Gettysburg Seminary in 1826, pastors trained native clergy intheir own homes.In a similar concern for the planting and growth of the church in NorthAmerica Wilhelm Loehe (1808-1872) soon realized that his Sendlinge -“emissaries”, “missionaries” - trained at Neuendettelsau, Bavaria, weren’t thebest answer to supplying pastors for North America. As a result he wasinstrumental in establishing a theological school at Fort Wayne, Ind., in 1846.Lack of ministers induced the Ohio Synod to establish a seminary at Canton,Ohio, in 1830, the forerunner of the Columbus Seminary (1831).The Saxon element of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod founded atheological college in the same year that they landed in Missouri (1839).Regrettably, Lutheran seminaries came to Canada rather late. WaterlooSeminary opened its doors in 1911. In Western Canada the Manitoba Synodopened a school in Edmonton in 1913, which was moved to Saskatoon two yearslater. Lutheran Theological School of the Norwegian Lutheran Church began inTheological Education 5Saskatoon in 1939. These western institutions merged in 1965 into the presentLutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon.The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod never established a Canadianseminary. However, in 1971 it approved a chair of theology at the SaskatoonSeminary and this fall it proposes to operate an extension of its SpringfieldSeminary at a place yet to be decided. It must be stated, of course, that Missouridid found Concordia College, Edmonton, in 19 2 las a pre-theology institution. Itsgraduates normally obtained their theological training at St. Louis.1 have gone into this history to demonstrate that Lutheranism in NorthAmerica realized and still realizes that clergy from the field must be trained onthe field for the field. The growth of the present LCA in Canada and the ELCC islargely indebted to the institutions these church bodies established in Waterlooand Saskatoon. Concordia, Edmonton, has been a real blessing for the growth ofLC-MS in Western Canada. Where indigenous pastors were trained, thereLutheranism flourished. Where it failed to do so, the church did not grow as itshould have and could have. In some areas it shrunk instead of grew.Nova Scotia, which boasts of the first Lutheran Church in Canada and itsoldest existing congregation, once had Lutheran congregations throughout theprovince. However, the failure of the mother church in Germany to continue tosend pastors to replace those that died or left, and its failure to train men in NovaScotia caused many Lutheran congregations to wither away or to affiliate withthe Church of England. That early history is a standing testimony to the tragedythat follows when the church fails to supply pastors from the native soil of thechurch. That is not the way the church is planted.Training its clergy for Canada in the U.S.A., as Missouri has done,is not thebest way in my opinion. I say this for several reasons. However, I shall confinemyself to identifying only two.First of all, many Canadian young men either do not want to or cannot studyin the U.S.A. American immigration laws do not allow some of these men to enterthe U.S.A. Of those who do enter many cannot work to help meet their educationcosts, depending on the prevailing immigration regulations.Secondly, many feel as I did and still do, that training in another country doesnot always fill the bill. This is particularly true in the area of practical theologyand to some extent in the area of historical theology. All through my studies atSt. Louis no course on the history of Canadian Lutheranism was offered. Later onfor a few years such a course was given. In practical theology all our courses wereslanted to the prevailing American sociological and ecclesiological conditions,for example, the parochial school and the absolute separation of church andstate, to name two. Can you imagine how that helps a Lutheran pastor to fit inwith the climate generated by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches whichthey hold in Canada or into Ontario’s Ryersonian pan-Protestantism? 1 aminformed that in recent years much of practical theology’s background was6 Consensustaught with the black and white struggle in mind. Our Canadian pastors needguidance on the French-English problem and the Indian-Inuit - white situation.HOW MANY SEMINARIES?Few of us doubt that there is a need for Lutheran theological education inCanada. One of the questions we need to ask is, “How many Lutheran seminariesdo we need?” I realize that there is no easy answer.The geography of Canada would indicate that more than the two existinginstitutions are required. More seminaries located in strategic geographic areaswould cut down on the students’ travel costs. However, with the current studenttravel rates this is not insurmountable. In the long run, it might even pay tosubsidize student travel costs rather than multiply expensive institutions.More seminaries, however, do afford a wider spectrum of church life in whichthe students can do field work and obtain in-job training. Besides, this willgenerate in each seminary area a greater feeling of ownership, responsibility andsupport.Emotional feelings along synodical and geographic lines will prevail for anumber of years after one Lutheran Church is established. This is so in anymarriage. Each partner brings in his or her own traditions, culture and practices.So it will be in one Lutheran Church in Canada. 1 realize one can over-ride theseemotional ties in a hard-nosed “this is the way it’s going to be” approach.However, I wonder how much that solves. I suspect that emotions thus dealt withwill only propagate counter emotions and “the last state shall be worse than thefirst.” Would more seminaries help solve the emotional problem? I’m not sure,but 1 do think we ought to think about it.Actually, considering the cost of higher education - and like everything else,theological education no longer comes cheaply either - we must ask. Can ourmembership of 300,000 support more than the two existing institutions? Both ofthem have excellent, new facilities. They are well located. They are capable ofexpanded student bodies. Staffing and library considerations also suggestkeeping the number of seminaries to a working minimum. For these practicalconsiderations, my opinion would be to stick with what we already have. Thefuture may dictate otherwise.WHAT KIND OF SEMINARY?A question much more important than the previous one is, what kind of aseminary or seminaries do we want? This is the crucial issue. I indicated earlierthat seminary education is of utmost significance for our church in Canada, forthat matter, for any church. “As the seminary goes so goes the church.”1 submit it must be a Lutheran seminary, not in name only but in spirit and intruth. I am sure that is so for you as for me. It must be a model Lutheran seminaryin structural format and in practice, one that incorporates the spirit and teachingsTheological Education 1of historic Lutheranism. We Lutherans have a precious heritage in our origin,history and performance, and above all in the Gospel we preach. These gifts arefrom the Lord. We must preserve them.WHAT CURRICULUM CONTENT?Historically, Lutheranism has divided theology into four principal branches:Exegetical (Biblical Studies), Systematics (Doctrinal Studies), Historical andPractical. This balanced format has served Lutheranism well and has produced aministry of which we can be proud.Originally I had planned to elaborate on the content of these four general areas.Time does not permit it. Elucidation, can well be left to the task force ontheological education and to this convocation.What I wish to emphasize in connection with the curriculum consideration isthat it must be taught from a faith point of view. We will be training pastors whosetask it is to bring people to faith and to preserve and develop the faith of thosewhom the Lord has committed to their charge. 1 stress this because, while ourpastors must be scholarly, we must not educate the mind at the expense of theheart. Our aim is to equip faith-hlled pastors who will communicate the sameliving faith to their parishioners. We are building for eternity. To that end theapproval and control of the curriculum content must be a prime consideration.WHAT KIND OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF ?Of course, a seminary needs teachers. What kind of professors do we require?Obviously, the best possible spiritually and academically! They should bespecialists in their held to impart the optimum training.With current emphasis on certification and accreditation, our seminaryprofessors will require the necessary academic degrees in theology. I am surethat the representative of the Association of Theological Schools will have a lotto say on that subject.On the other hand, scholarship is not the sole qualification. 1 am sure you willagree that a theological professor in a Lutheran institution must be a Lutheran.On the other hand, he need not necessarily be an ordained pastor. In certainsubjects, a well-trained lay person can fill the bill. I should imagine that adedicated, informed layman can serve as well as a clergyman in the practicalfield. I am thinking of such subjects as hymnology, church music, liturgies,counselling, sermon delivery, education etc. 1 am confident that a qualified layhistorian can do a good job in teaching church history.Need I add that, as far as possible, the instructors should be Canadians? I askthis not for nationalist reasons nor as a result of the recent publicity on theSymons Report re the seeming preference for foreign professors over Canadian.I believe that our professors should, as far as possible, be Canadian for threereasons.The first is that, since they will train clergy for the Canadian ministry, they8 Consensusshould be thoroughly at home and acquainted with our Canadian thinking andways, our sociological conditions, our problems. They should have a thoroughknowledge of the history of Lutheranism in Canada and a good workingacquaintance with our national history.The second is that, if they are going to train pastors for the Canadian field, theymust have the “feel” of the Canadian ministry. That acquaintance can come onlythrough living in Canada and serving in the Canadian milieu.The third reason 1 submit is that we need to train Canadians to developtheological leadership. How can we develop theological leaders if we importthem from elsewhere? It is gratifying and promising for the future to see youngerCanadian pastors occupying chairs in our seminaries. Some of them are with usin this convocation. The importance of Canadian theological leadership willacquire greater significance as we become an independent Canadian church. Ifwe can’t operate our own theological training, we should think again aboutbecoming a national, autonomous church. If we haven’t got the qualified staffavailable now, we should get busy and train these instructors now.CONCLUSIONThis, in brief, is my view on the subject of theological education for theLutheran Church in Canada.I realize I haven’t said everything on the subject. There is nothing in this paperabout the governing and control of theological institutions. Nor have 1 saidanything about academic freedom and its relationship to Lutheran theologicalschools. All of these are areas requiring discussion, evaluation and answers. Youmay be sure that somewhere along the line these blanks will be filled in by yourtask force on theological education committee and carefully combed through bythe Joint Commission.In conclusion, I repeat that what I have said are not the views of the task forceon theological education. They are my own. I am aware that some, if not all ofthem, will be discussed at this convocation by the other speakers and in thediscussion groups. I hope, however, that I have given you something to thinkabout.

Theological Education for a Lutheran Church in Canada

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 2 | Issue 3 Article 1
7-1-1976
Theological Education for a Lutheran Church in
Canada
Harold A. Merklinger
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Merklinger, Harold A. (1976) "Theological Education for a Lutheran Church in Canada," Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 1.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol2/iss3/1
THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
FORA LUTHERAN CHURCH
IN CANADA
Harold Merklinger
I am honoured to have this opportunity to make this introductory statement on
theological education. What pleases me even more is seeing you here - all of you.
Your presence surely speaks well for the Lutheran Church in Canada. For you to
take this time to listen to the views of others and to express your own concepts
and expectations on this important subject is most heartening.
Added to this is the broad spectrum of representation at this convocation. We
require and have with us the professional theological educators. Their knowledge
and experience is essential. Ye^, not everyone here is actively engaged in
theological education. We have a representation of the products of the seminary
to help us - the pastors. Out of their experience as theological students preparing
for the ministry and now in office they will be able to evaluate how well they were
trained for their work, or how they could have been better equipped. Most of all, I
appreciate the presence of lay people, men and women, who must listen to us
preachers every Sunday. You are the recipients of our ministry. I place a great
deal of importance and credence in the evaluation of the ministry from the pew.
After all, the prime purpose of theological education is to train and assist pastors
to bring Christ to the people and the people to Christ. I anticipate a positive and
valuable contribution from the lay representation. 1 also wish to acknowledge the
presence of past and present representatives of the Boards pf Governors. Out of
their long experience they have a lot to offer on the subject before us. We need
3
4 Consensus
their input. From their first-hand acquaintance they know what is possible from
the management and control aspect. Some of us preachers are inclined to be
dreamers and idealists. These governors can and, I am sure, will tell us what is
workable or not.
The participation of this varied yet balanced representation must surely
produce concrete results.
What 1 am presenting this morning is my own thinking on the subject. I have
not consulted others on the views 1 am presenting. They are my own. Later, the
task force on theological education of which 1 am a member will prepare a
position paper for presentation to the Joint Commission on Inter-Lutheran
Relationships. 1 confidently look forward to meeting with Pastors Hohm and
Huras to produce a plan for the theological education of one Lutheran Church in
Canada, when by God’s grace and guidance that comes about.
WHY LUTHERAN SEMINARIES IN CANADA?
This convocation recognizes the importance of the education and training of
pastors. In fact, it is crucial for the church. As the seminaries go, so goes the
church. Our pastors need and the Lord’s work demands the best equipping
possible for the ministry.
The Lutheran Church in Canada must train its clergy in Canada. That is basic
for its development and growth.
The pioneer pastors in North America realized very early in their activities on
this side of the Atlantic that clergy must be trained in the country where they are
to serve. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-1782) took as his motto Ecclesia
Plantanda: the church must be planted. That planting included not only the
organizing of a synod free from European control but also the training of pastors
on North American soil. Unfortunately, Muhlenberg’s initial plans for a
theological institution disappeared in the smoke of the Revolutionary War. Prior
to the founding of Gettysburg Seminary in 1826, pastors trained native clergy in
their own homes.
In a similar concern for the planting and growth of the church in North
America Wilhelm Loehe (1808-1872) soon realized that his Sendlinge -
“emissaries”, “missionaries” - trained at Neuendettelsau, Bavaria, weren’t the
best answer to supplying pastors for North America. As a result he was
instrumental in establishing a theological school at Fort Wayne, Ind., in 1846.
Lack of ministers induced the Ohio Synod to establish a seminary at Canton,
Ohio, in 1830, the forerunner of the Columbus Seminary (1831).
The Saxon element of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod founded a
theological college in the same year that they landed in Missouri (1839).
Regrettably, Lutheran seminaries came to Canada rather late. Waterloo
Seminary opened its doors in 1911. In Western Canada the Manitoba Synod
opened a school in Edmonton in 1913, which was moved to Saskatoon two years
later. Lutheran Theological School of the Norwegian Lutheran Church began in
Theological Education 5
Saskatoon in 1939. These western institutions merged in 1965 into the present
Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon.
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod never established a Canadian
seminary. However, in 1971 it approved a chair of theology at the Saskatoon
Seminary and this fall it proposes to operate an extension of its Springfield
Seminary at a place yet to be decided. It must be stated, of course, that Missouri
did found Concordia College, Edmonton, in 19 2 las a pre-theology institution. Its
graduates normally obtained their theological training at St. Louis.
1 have gone into this history to demonstrate that Lutheranism in North
America realized and still realizes that clergy from the field must be trained on
the field for the field. The growth of the present LCA in Canada and the ELCC is
largely indebted to the institutions these church bodies established in Waterloo
and Saskatoon. Concordia, Edmonton, has been a real blessing for the growth of
LC-MS in Western Canada. Where indigenous pastors were trained, there
Lutheranism flourished. Where it failed to do so, the church did not grow as it
should have and could have. In some areas it shrunk instead of grew.
Nova Scotia, which boasts of the first Lutheran Church in Canada and its
oldest existing congregation, once had Lutheran congregations throughout the
province. However, the failure of the mother church in Germany to continue to
send pastors to replace those that died or left, and its failure to train men in Nova
Scotia caused many Lutheran congregations to wither away or to affiliate with
the Church of England. That early history is a standing testimony to the tragedy
that follows when the church fails to supply pastors from the native soil of the
church. That is not the way the church is planted.
Training its clergy for Canada in the U.S.A., as Missouri has done,is not the
best way in my opinion. I say this for several reasons. However, I shall confine
myself to identifying only two.
First of all, many Canadian young men either do not want to or cannot study
in the U.S.A. American immigration laws do not allow some of these men to enter
the U.S.A. Of those who do enter many cannot work to help meet their education
costs, depending on the prevailing immigration regulations.
Secondly, many feel as I did and still do, that training in another country does
not always fill the bill. This is particularly true in the area of practical theology
and to some extent in the area of historical theology. All through my studies at
St. Louis no course on the history of Canadian Lutheranism was offered. Later on
for a few years such a course was given. In practical theology all our courses were
slanted to the prevailing American sociological and ecclesiological conditions,
for example, the parochial school and the absolute separation of church and
state, to name two. Can you imagine how that helps a Lutheran pastor to fit in
with the climate generated by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches which
they hold in Canada or into Ontario’s Ryersonian pan-Protestantism? 1 am
informed that in recent years much of practical theology’s background was
6 Consensus
taught with the black and white struggle in mind. Our Canadian pastors need
guidance on the French-English problem and the Indian-Inuit - white situation.
HOW MANY SEMINARIES?
Few of us doubt that there is a need for Lutheran theological education in
Canada. One of the questions we need to ask is, “How many Lutheran seminaries
do we need?” I realize that there is no easy answer.
The geography of Canada would indicate that more than the two existing
institutions are required. More seminaries located in strategic geographic areas
would cut down on the students’ travel costs. However, with the current student
travel rates this is not insurmountable. In the long run, it might even pay to
subsidize student travel costs rather than multiply expensive institutions.
More seminaries, however, do afford a wider spectrum of church life in which
the students can do field work and obtain in-job training. Besides, this will
generate in each seminary area a greater feeling of ownership, responsibility and
support.
Emotional feelings along synodical and geographic lines will prevail for a
number of years after one Lutheran Church is established. This is so in any
marriage. Each partner brings in his or her own traditions, culture and practices.
So it will be in one Lutheran Church in Canada. 1 realize one can over-ride these
emotional ties in a hard-nosed “this is the way it’s going to be” approach.
However, I wonder how much that solves. I suspect that emotions thus dealt with
will only propagate counter emotions and “the last state shall be worse than the
first.” Would more seminaries help solve the emotional problem? I’m not sure,
but 1 do think we ought to think about it.
Actually, considering the cost of higher education - and like everything else,
theological education no longer comes cheaply either - we must ask. Can our
membership of 300,000 support more than the two existing institutions? Both of
them have excellent, new facilities. They are well located. They are capable of
expanded student bodies. Staffing and library considerations also suggest
keeping the number of seminaries to a working minimum. For these practical
considerations, my opinion would be to stick with what we already have. The
future may dictate otherwise.
WHAT KIND OF SEMINARY?
A question much more important than the previous one is, what kind of a
seminary or seminaries do we want? This is the crucial issue. I indicated earlier
that seminary education is of utmost significance for our church in Canada, for
that matter, for any church. “As the seminary goes so goes the church.”
1 submit it must be a Lutheran seminary, not in name only but in spirit and in
truth. I am sure that is so for you as for me. It must be a model Lutheran seminary
in structural format and in practice, one that incorporates the spirit and teachings
Theological Education 1
of historic Lutheranism. We Lutherans have a precious heritage in our origin,
history and performance, and above all in the Gospel we preach. These gifts are
from the Lord. We must preserve them.
WHAT CURRICULUM CONTENT?
Historically, Lutheranism has divided theology into four principal branches:
Exegetical (Biblical Studies), Systematics (Doctrinal Studies), Historical and
Practical. This balanced format has served Lutheranism well and has produced a
ministry of which we can be proud.
Originally I had planned to elaborate on the content of these four general areas.
Time does not permit it. Elucidation, can well be left to the task force on
theological education and to this convocation.
What I wish to emphasize in connection with the curriculum consideration is
that it must be taught from a faith point of view. We will be training pastors whose
task it is to bring people to faith and to preserve and develop the faith of those
whom the Lord has committed to their charge. 1 stress this because, while our
pastors must be scholarly, we must not educate the mind at the expense of the
heart. Our aim is to equip faith-hlled pastors who will communicate the same
living faith to their parishioners. We are building for eternity. To that end the
approval and control of the curriculum content must be a prime consideration.
WHAT KIND OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF ?
Of course, a seminary needs teachers. What kind of professors do we require?
Obviously, the best possible spiritually and academically! They should be
specialists in their held to impart the optimum training.
With current emphasis on certification and accreditation, our seminary
professors will require the necessary academic degrees in theology. I am sure
that the representative of the Association of Theological Schools will have a lot
to say on that subject.
On the other hand, scholarship is not the sole qualification. 1 am sure you will
agree that a theological professor in a Lutheran institution must be a Lutheran.
On the other hand, he need not necessarily be an ordained pastor. In certain
subjects, a well-trained lay person can fill the bill. I should imagine that a
dedicated, informed layman can serve as well as a clergyman in the practical
field. I am thinking of such subjects as hymnology, church music, liturgies,
counselling, sermon delivery, education etc. 1 am confident that a qualified lay
historian can do a good job in teaching church history.
Need I add that, as far as possible, the instructors should be Canadians? I ask
this not for nationalist reasons nor as a result of the recent publicity on the
Symons Report re the seeming preference for foreign professors over Canadian.
I believe that our professors should, as far as possible, be Canadian for three
reasons.
The first is that, since they will train clergy for the Canadian ministry, they
8 Consensus
should be thoroughly at home and acquainted with our Canadian thinking and
ways, our sociological conditions, our problems. They should have a thorough
knowledge of the history of Lutheranism in Canada and a good working
acquaintance with our national history.
The second is that, if they are going to train pastors for the Canadian field, they
must have the “feel” of the Canadian ministry. That acquaintance can come only
through living in Canada and serving in the Canadian milieu.
The third reason 1 submit is that we need to train Canadians to develop
theological leadership. How can we develop theological leaders if we import
them from elsewhere? It is gratifying and promising for the future to see younger
Canadian pastors occupying chairs in our seminaries. Some of them are with us
in this convocation. The importance of Canadian theological leadership will
acquire greater significance as we become an independent Canadian church. If
we can’t operate our own theological training, we should think again about
becoming a national, autonomous church. If we haven’t got the qualified staff
available now, we should get busy and train these instructors now.
CONCLUSION
This, in brief, is my view on the subject of theological education for the
Lutheran Church in Canada.
I realize I haven’t said everything on the subject. There is nothing in this paper
about the governing and control of theological institutions. Nor have 1 said
anything about academic freedom and its relationship to Lutheran theological
schools. All of these are areas requiring discussion, evaluation and answers. You
may be sure that somewhere along the line these blanks will be filled in by your
task force on theological education committee and carefully combed through by
the Joint Commission.
In conclusion, I repeat that what I have said are not the views of the task force
on theological education. They are my own. I am aware that some, if not all of
them, will be discussed at this convocation by the other speakers and in the
discussion groups. I hope, however, that I have given you something to think
about.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2292&amp;context=consensus

Theological Education for a Lutheran Church in Canada

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons