No. 36. >> I know we are running low on time. But may I ask one final question? I have an instance of casuistry I would like to present to you for your remarks. The case involves a Lutheran school in which the principal announced to the teachers that if they would complete the colloquy program for certification in our Synod, he would recommend them for a divine call from the congregation. Right away one of the teachers entered the colloquy program and finished it. However, during the months of his study, the teacher began to exhibit problems that severely affected his work in the classroom. Eventually things became so serious that the principal informed the teacher that there could not be a contract for the next school year. He was being let go. Now, this case becomes really complex. The teacher called upon the principal to keep the original promise. Namely, that if the colloquy studies were successfully completed, the principal would recommend the teacher for divine call. The teacher argued that he wanted the call so that his name could be placed on the District's call list. Wanting to stay true to the promise, the principal and the pastor, offered to extend a call if the teacher would agree beforehand to decline the call. He agreed and the process moved forward. When the voters meeting came, the congregation did issue the call and to the surprise of the principal and the pastor, the teacher accepted the call. The case remains unresolved. Would you be willing to apply lessons you have been teaching us to this dilemma? >>DR. JOEL D. BIERMANN: All right, Nick. I'm tempted to say: No I don't even want to touch your question. Concrete situations are where these things always get nasty and get hard. I have the advantage of sitting back on the outside. Just listening to the question. I don't know the players involved. I don't know the histories. So it's kind of easier for me to make a snap judgement. And I'll take a run at this and try to apply some of the principles here and we'll think this thing through. I'm not sure I'll have a final solution. But at least I think we can bring a little clarity to kind of what's going on and how we might look at this a little differently. I would say, first of all, the colloquy idea is a good idea. The fact that we have Lutheran schools that are being staffed by non-Lutherans always I find a little bit perplexing and odd. I think it's a good thing that our Lutheran school teachers learn Lutheran doctrine and have the equipment so they can apply doctrinally correct principles in classrooms. That's a good thing. A very good idea. The second objection I would make is apparently the teacher who had gone through the colloquy program wasn't paying attention in class somewhere along the way or something went a little haywire because for a teacher to make a deal and then to go back on that, oh, there's a huge lack of integrity. And a huge lack of, you know, commitment to being faithful. I mean, it's just playing games. So that's just unfortunate. And I would really wonder about the person's Christian integrity who would say: Okay. You can give me the call. And I'll refuse it. And that's the deal we've got worked out. And then they turn around and change their actions. That's unacceptable. Now, let's go to the problem with the principal and the pastor. I think the situation where the principal felt like he was kind of obligated to extend the call because of the promise he made, I think that was an error. Because this is a left hand issue, guys. This is an issue of we want to have people who are competent in our classrooms teaching our children. And if you have an incompetent person, it doesn't matter if they are educated in the Lutheran school or not, they don't belong in the classroom if they are not competent. It's just a left hand question. And what had happened was the original promise had been altered by this individual's failure to keep one of the most basic elements of the contract, which is to faithfully carry out my responsibilities. A teacher is contracted. They are there to carry out a task in the left hand realm. They need to do that well in the horizontal realm. If they are not doing it well, the principal is obligated to remove that person so they are not going to continue doing a bad job. The fact that the person had completed a colloquy, great, I'm glad you have some more information. It still doesn't make you a good teacher. That's a different issue. So the principal should have simply said: I'm sorry how this has worked out. But I'm even more sorry that you weren't able to handle the classroom the way you needed to. But we cannot have you in a classroom next year. And I really hope that with your Lutheran education, you're able to find another call somewhere else or another contract somewhere else. But we cannot issue you a call in good conscious knowing that you are not a competent teacher in our classroom. That was a big mistake that principal made personally. Now, now that it's done, the call has been issued, the person has taken it, I think the principal has no other choice but to go to the congregation, spill the beans, tell the whole story and say: I errored greatly in recommending this person for a call. I should not have done that. Please forgive me for this wrong move. And let's do the right thing now. And we need this -- this teacher should not be in our classroom next year. And we need to do the appropriate actions. And I think the congregation needs to do that. Is there going to be a little egg on everybody's face? Yeah. There is. But I'm not sure if there's any better way around that one. Integrity is being compromised in lots of places. But it's worse to kind of play games with the divine call I think than it is to simply say: Things have changed. You're not the teacher we thought you were. And I'm sorry that it's not working out. But we cannot issue you a call in good conscious and proceed like everything is the same and kind of play with the call. A call is a call. And the teacher had every right to take that call. Even though she had made a promise or he had made a promise not to. Which is the lack of integrity. When a call is issued, yeah, you're given a call and you can't put an asterisk on it and say: But don't take it. That's not really being fair, either. So I think there's a whole series of errors being made here, which is typical of these bad situations. And really the only way out is for people to take responsibility for their part in it. Come clean, admit that responsibility. And allow the congregation to figure out the best way forward in light of these situations. One other thought that occurs to me as I'm just kind of thinking about this issue is that it could very well be that the principal and maybe the pastor are both being motivated by some of that Lutheran tendency to kind of be hung up on the Gospel and really, we have to do the Gospel. We have to do the loving thing. We have to make sure the Gospel is being the motive. And that could be what is driving them to want to go the extra mile, do the right thing. Or try to kind of help out this teacher. Okay, we'll go ahead and give him the call. So this is a really good illustration of what happens when you let the Gospel try to inform the left hand. In fact, this is a very good example of that. If you think back to what I gave you, you know, way back in the discussion here, that the Gospel does not rule the left hand very well at all. And if you try to bring the Gospel into the left hand, you almost always get into a mess. And maybe that's what's going on here. Maybe the desire is: Well, let's do the Gospel thing. Let's just go ahead and work with this teacher. And we'll give him the call. That's the Gospel thing to do. And now they get bit. Nailed. Because they were not kind of holding the line in the left hand. The obvious thing is: Hey, this teacher is not a good teacher. We don't want this teacher in the classroom. No call. That's the obvious law-motivated left hand thing to do. Then the Gospel says: Oh, go ahead. So they do that. And now they are nailed. Because they've taken the Gospel. Tried to shoe horn it into the left hand. And now everybody is paying the price. Left the left hand be run by the left hand. The law has its place. It can be harsh. And it can be hard. And there are times to kind of soften it but you better be careful you're not setting yourself up to get hurt because you're not being faithful with your responsibility. And instead you're kind of doing it in the name of the Gospel. It doesn't work very well. And maybe that's part of what's going on here. And I would be very suspicious that at least it entered into their thoughts a little bit here. I'm certain that was an underlying factor in some of this in not keeping the law and the Gospel straight. Keeping the two realms straight. So tough question. And answers are hard to come by. But I think you can begin to think with some clarity if you think through it in the two realms and the two kinds of righteousness. And I hope you're able to sort out your own casuistry issues down the road.