Recalling the Summit held on March 9th, 2001

Things are a bit out of order here - you will note that I have posted "March 19th, 2001" below, but in reviewing my conversion journal, I discovered (to my amazement) that I actually had no account of the Summit meeting that was held at St Paul's Lutheran Church in Box Hill on March 9th, 2001. All I have written in my journal is that the Summit took place, and after that, Cathy and I (and P.? I can't remember - I don't think so) went around to Pete and Susie's place where we had dinner with Fr Pritchard and Fr Anthony.

The Summit consisted of 18 specially invited pastors meeting with the three of us and the president. We each presented our concerns (which had to be outlined on a single sheet of A4 paper), and then the three appointed respondents responded. There wasn't a lot of time for discussion, and neither Peter nor I felt that our concerns were in anyway answered.

The president then closed the day by getting us all to sing "A mighty Fortress" together. I vividly recall feeling like I had been ambushed with that one... I commented in an email to someone "No-one expects the Lutheran Inquisition"!

I did find this summary of events in an old email written by Peter the next day:

There were 18 or so present in the end and emotions and reactions of the day moved through much frustration, misunderstanding, anger, hurt, sorrow, laughter, some tears, and yet a strong current of empathy and understanding from small number of brothers who, while still disagreeing, finally saw the extent to which the issue impacts on us and our ministry.

Some who came and genuinely tried to understand could not, but seemed committed to further attempts to understand. Others have come to realised what it was all about and now see the full extent of the pressures and strain on ministry. For all its pain the day achieved this important goal. I don't believe any of the three of us went to convince or convert our brothers, we simply sought to be understood. But, because they relate to the whole church, the questions challenged us all.

That seems to me to be a fairly accurate description.

Any way, here is the paper I presented on the day. You will notice themes that are still with me here in 2008, although somewhat resolved!

You can read Peter's paper here, and the response to it.

Here is my paper:

TEN KEY QUESITONS THAT HAVE LED ME TO WHERE I AM TODAY.

David Schütz for the Summit at St Paul’s, Box Hill on 9th March, 2001

1) In ecumenical theology, two ecclesiologies are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a visible reality which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an invisible reality that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments. For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?

2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever the Word and Sacraments (the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what happens when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy that is supposed to bring it into existence?

3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?

4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future.

5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on the doctrine of the ministry, since there is an inherant ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly refered to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). Greg Lockwood’s paper at our last Pastors Conference demonstrated the difficulty in trying to resolve this ambiguity. Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately chosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?

6) The LCA regards the external validation of the call by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is confered from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises the authority of the episcopate (CA 28), the 16th Century saw a radical break in the continuity of the orders when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised?

7) The historic episcopate and episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a tangible continuity of authority has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired?

8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition?

9) Sasse: “Gentlmen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given the priority of the Roman Catholic Church (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the sin of schism by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, eg. heresy or apostacy. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostasised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?

10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. How does a Lutheran answer this statement?

And here is the response to my paper from Pastor PK:

A Response to: ‘Ten Key Questions That Have Led Me To Where I Am Today’. for the Summit on March 9, 2001

Introduction.

This paper has raised some important issues for discussion. Interestingly, I believe that most of them are well covered and answered by the Theses of Agreement (TA). Here, too, we find the scriptural and confessional references that enable us to grapple with the ten key questions.

1) TA-V demonstrates that we do not hold to the first ecclesiology mentiond in the paper: ‘The Church, essentially or properly so called, the One Holy Christian Church, the Una Sancta, the Church Universal, is the people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the communion or congregation of saints, which Christ has called, enlightened and gathered through the Holy Spirit by the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, which he has thus created to be his Spiritual Body’ V.1. Many scriptural references follow. No denomination can claim exclusive title to the one, holy and catholic church. The LCA has never made this claim of exclusivity. The RCC, however, makes this claim in ‘Dominus Jesus’ when it says that ‘the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church’. Non catholic churches ‘derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’ (para. 16). It admits that ‘the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church’ (para. 17). But then it says that if they have not ‘preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery’, they ‘are not Churches in the proper sense’ (para. 17). Although the TA use the term ‘invisible’ to describe the true church, it also uses the term ‘hidden’, a much better description. The body of Christ is known only to Christ, who himself is hidden from our eyes, albeit ‘revealed’ in word and sacraments. The LCA has been wary of entering into communion with other churches not because it believes it is the only true church, but because it believes that true unity is centered in the pure preaching of the gospel and the right institution of the sacraments (CA 7).

2) The Sacraments and liturgy are not synonymous. Nor is the reality of the church based on the historic liturgy. The liturgy does not bring the church into existence; that is the task of the word and Sacraments (Eph 2, R 10:14-15; Titus 3). Scripture does not restrict the church to one historic liturgy; it simply gives us a skeletal sketch of the liturgy (Cf Col 3). The early church did not have the ecumenical creeds, for example. David, however, rightly warns the church not to abandon the historic liturgy.

3) Cf TA V.11; CRCR Statement: ‘Gospel and Scripture’. The locus of Christ’s authority is the word (Jn 8:31-32). Christ gave his keys to the church. The church also receives from Christ pastors who exercise Christ’s authority of the keys in the church. No one in the church claims authority; authority is a gift of the risen Christ to his church through his word. For Lutherans the word is interpreted by the great consensus of pastors, theologians and laity and given to us in the confessions, which always remain for us the ‘norma normata’. Tradition is also an important feature of this interpretation (cf my concluding remarks). LCA Synods do not create doctrine, they give assent to scriptural doctrine that comes to them through the confessions.

4)I agree that the church has no right to change its doctrinal foundation. At the same time, it is not tradition which leads the church to deny the ordination of women, but Scripture. Sadly, no doctrine is safe from falsification as the NT shows (Mt 7:15f.; Gal 1-3; 2 Peter 2; the Corinthian church etc.). But how does Paul correct errors? Through the word!

5) TA VI.1: ‘The NT ministry is the office instituted by Christ for the public administration of the means of grace....’ Many passages from Scripture are then adduced. That is the agreement reached and confessed by the LCA. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with this statement. The authority of the minister is always from above, from Christ through his word.

6) CF TA VI. 7-8. ‘The Lord calls individuals into the office of the ministry through the Christian congregations, Acts 13:1-4, and the Christian congregation, either alone or together with other congregations, or through properly appointed representatives, calls qualified persons (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9; 2 Tim 2:24-25; Acts 1:24) into the office of the ministry publicly to exercise the functions of this office. The minister of the Word is thus called by the Lord through his Church, and by the Church as through human agency and authority, but in obedience to the command of the Lord’ (TA VI.7).

It is Christ through his church who validates the ministry of the Lutheran Church. Our ministry is valid because we are calling candidates into the ministry by the command of Christ. There seems to be the implication in this question that unless the church has the hierarchical episcopate one cannot have a properly authorised ministry. CA 28 recognises the divine authority of the episcopate but only insofar as it gains its authority from the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. When it exercises secular power, its authority is seen as ‘de iure humano’. The Lutheran Church of the 16th century did not see the break in the continuity of the orders as ‘radical’; the confessions do not even discuss the subject! The confessions do operate with the concept of a succession of ordained ministers (SA 111.20 and Tr 72), as well as a succession of apostolic teaching. Holding faithfully to the apostolic teaching is the true apostolic succession.

7) The Lutheran Church does not see the historic episcopate as being of the esse of the church. For this reason it cannot be an essential mark of the church . The historic episcopate cannot be traced to the ‘very beginning of the church’. The NT makes no distinction between bishops and elders. Their nomenclature is used interchangeably. It is with Ignatius that the bishop begins to take precedence over the elder and is seen to be especially important for truth and unity; but even here it is too early to speak of the historic episcopate. The historic episcopate does not guarantee orthodoxy. Many bishops have taught false doctrines. The essential marks of the church are the word and sacraments. Why should the LCA want to create an episcopate in the historical succession? Does the imposition of hands by a bishop give a pastor greater authority than God’s word?

8) Cf TA V.1. The LCA is catholic because it proclaims the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments, which are the essence of the catholic church, the una sancta. The LCA’s catholicism is therefore in no way contingent upon communion with the bishop of Rome.

9) The RCC was not ‘there first’. That honour belongs to the Orthodox Church. Even so, priority does not depend on being first. It depends on the word and sacraments. The Lutheran Church has always claimed to be a continuation of the true church of
Christ. Luther did not want to start a new church, but he was excommunicated. Was that a sin of schism? Schism is not always evil; not if it means separating oneself from apostasy or heresy (R 16:17). Rome has remained faithful to many doctrines. But it has departed from other articles of the catholic faith. Many doctrines have been developed over the last 2000 years which find no foundation in Scripture — the assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences etc. And what are we to make of celibacy? Despite JDDJ Rome still adheres to Trent and its anathemas of justification by faith alone. It is noteworthy that justification by faith alone is not confessed by the RCC in JDDJ. ‘Dominus Jesus’ does not verify Rome’s orthodoxy. Whilst it properly says that salvation is through Christ alone, it is inclusivistic, i.e. it allows for people without faith in Christ to be saved. Inclusivism is also taught by Vatican II. ‘They also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience’ (Vatican II; cf ‘Dominus Jesus, para. 8, 20-22). In other words one can receive the grace of God apart from the gospel and Scripture. This concept that one can be an ‘anonymous Christian’ is ludicrous. It is explicitly rejected by Scripture; it is certainly not implicit in Scripture. Here the teaching office of the RCC is opposed to Scripture. That is the inevitable result of rejecting ‘sola Scriptura’. Inclusivism shows clearly why Rome could not confess justification by faith alone in JDDJ — it would have breached Roman Catholic doctrine. ‘Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?’ As long as Rome disallows justification by faith alone the answer, sadly, is ‘Yes!’

10) The unity of the church’s faith Ratzinger speaks of is a myth in the RCC. There is a wide spectrum of theology taught in that church by its members. All of us here today know that the grossest heresies can be found in the church. Not that the Lutheran Church is pure in this respect as has been rightly said. Furthermore, a unity of faith is of no value unless that faith is grounded in Scripture. A church can be united in teaching false doctrine and following human opinions! eg those churches which ordain women; no obedience of Christ here. But unity of faith in Jesus is a product of the church proclaiming the gospel and administering the sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Unity is a gift of God (Eph 4). As for the church’s authority, where does that come from? Does it not come from Christ as mediated to the church through the Scriptures?

Peter gives his final assessment of the whole Summit event here.

Monday, 19th March, 2001: In which I turn 34, have a final interview with the President, check out mass at my new parish, and receive letters

They say a week in politics is a long time--well, so is a week in a conversion story. Much has happened, and I have to run my mind over the last week again.

I happily celebrated my birthday on Monday. Cathy had arranged a number of “surprise” events, including lunch at her parents with a number of friends and dinner at a restaurant with the Spikes and Brooks (minus children). Unfortunately, I was feeling very “off” by the evening and did not have the opportunity to chin-wag over red wine late into the night as I would have liked.

Tuesday brought a summons into the President's office, so I made the appointment for Wednesday after meeting with P. and Peter and waited to see what would happen.

On Wednesday, we gathered together as usual, and I found that on Tuesday Peter had also answered a summons. Peter said that the President had basically accused him of trying to be a “David Schutz” clone, and was recommending that he have no more contact with me. He was not supposed even to be at our meeting this morning--a fact that instantly had P. thinking that we had better call an end to the meeting here and now. Peter reassured him that there was nothing to fear, because he had drafted his letter of resignation. He read it out to us. It made clear that he intended to resign from both his parish and the LCA ministry forthwith.

So, forewarned is forearmed, and I went to see the President immediately afterwards. He said he had heard a number of reports that he wanted to check up on.

Firstly he had heard that I “had been catechised”. I said that he knew that I was seeing Anthony Fisher for this express purpose since I had told him of it at the very beginning.

Then he moved onto the subject of when I would be ceasing my ministry, and I got in first and told him that I would be ending on Palm Sunday. He welcomed this decision.

Then he said that as far as he could tell there was no point in continuing the “process” from his end, because as far as he could see I had already “converted”. I said this was true to an extent. There was nothing that would deter me from my decision that I have made, nor from the answers that I had found to my questions, but that I was happy to continue discussion with the pastor whom he had assigned to me to clarify the issues for the LCA.

Continuing on his conviction that I had already “converted”, he then asked me to resign completely from the ministry of the LCA. I told him I was not going to do so voluntarily, but he was welcome to bring charges against me and begin the process of having me removed from the roll if that was what he wanted. He indicated that he was not willing to do this. I assured him that the Summit would be the last time I would be meeting with the Pastors of the district as a pastor, that I would not be attending Pastor’s Conference in April, and that I would in no way function or act as a pastor of the church while I was on leave of absence. With this he had to be satisfied.

I closed by saying that I was sorry if this reflected poorly upon him among his fellow presidents. He indicated that he was a little uncomfortable about it.

So that was that. I do not expect to have another interview with him on this matter.

Thursday morning I finally received two letters in the post telling me that the Mt Scopus and Montrose applications had both been unsuccessful. This was disappointing, but I had already accepted the fact (I would have heard earlier otherwise), and so it simply “put me out of my misery”, as they say.

That afternoon I met with Fr Greg Pritchard to pick up some forms that needed to be filled out for the Music Coordinator position. I think I will really enjoy this work. We talked about a number of issues, and I think we will see eye to eye on most things, or I will learn to adapt my tastes to fit his and the parishes. I resolved to attend at least one or two main Sunday or Vigil masses between now and when I take up office, so that I have some practical feel for the situation.

Friday night I received a phone call from Peter. He had taken his letter of resignation into the President, and was announcing his decision on Sunday. I must say news of this shook me a little. It shouldn’t have, since I was fully forewarned, yet I had just been feeling a bit sorry for myself and for my uncertain future that the thought that Peter and Susie and their children were going to have to bear it also was a little too much for me.

On Saturday I spoke to A., who said that his wife had been the receptionist in the president's office who received Peter’s “envelope” and suspected its nature. A. said that he had actually asked the President whether he was taking the whole business “personally”, and he had indicated that he was.

I was too late getting Maddy ready for Mass Saturday morning (Mia was starting swimming at 12:30pm so we were going to the pool later than normal), and so I decided to go to the vigil mass on Saturday night. Fr Paul was celebrating, but I really wanted to see what happened music wise. The congregation was about 60% capacity, mostly elderly, which surprised me as I thought the Saturday evening would be more “young people” orientated. The songs and the mass settings were not the easiest to sing. I knew the Psalm setting and the offering song (“Be with me Lord, when I am in trouble”--a favourite), but the rest was certainly not the most tuneful material.

They had sung entrance song, kyrie, psalm, verse, offering song, sanctus, lamb of God, communion song and recessional. Some of the overhead screens were only hand written and not easy to see on the other side of the church where I sat down at first. I shifted to the other side just to see the screen better. We will have to do something about that. One organist, one cantor, and an overhead projector assistant.

But the liturgy was done well. Paul is a rather odd preacher, but he can do a very reverent liturgy. There were crucifer, torch bearers, book bearers etc. and all the servers did their jobs competently and confidently. I found myself rather surprised at how surprised I was when I felt the strong need to receive holy communion. Somehow this was different from what I had been doing every Sunday morning for the last nine years. And I wanted desperately to be a part of it.

Yesterday I did my last “three service Sunday + confirmation lesson + BBQ”, only I felt too tired to go to the BBQ at Casey, and in the end it was wet and cold and only one family came along prepared for it. They had been up in Bendigo, where it was bright and sunny, and were not aware of the weather down here. We had a good service at Casey, but they were sad to realise it was “second to last”. I tried ringing Peter but he was “incommunicado”.

Today I had contact from all three priests, Fr John Fleming (by phone this evening to see how we were all getting along), Fr Greg Pritchard (by mail to confirm my appointment), and Fr Anthony Fisher with the following email.

Dear David,

Herewith a document that might be useful for us to go through when next we meet. Any questions you have about any of it, please scribble them down.

I will be speaking with the Archbishop further about your situation his week and wonder if you could email me a summary of our financial needs, both in terms of what and when (as far as ou can predict it), esp re job, house, car, loans...

God bless David.

Anthony OP

The attachment was Paul IV’s “Credo”, and my reply to this email was as follows:

Dear Anthony,

Thank you for the document. I wonder if we can meet this Friday morning (eg. 10am?) at the Priory to discuss it? I would be happy to move along these lines of directed reading. I am still reading through the Catechism, and have come across only one place that I would like clarification, and that is on the relationship of original sin and concupiscence (as adressed in para. 406).

Would you have an evening free in the first week in April to come to dinner? Thursday is out, but any other evening should be fine.

Thank you for your concern regarding our financial needs. As I see it, the situation is as follows:

Job:

I will celebrate my last service as a Lutehran paster on Palm Sunday. Greg Pritchard has kindly offered me "two days a week" at $10,000 a year (inc. work cover and super) at Our Lady's in Ringwood as "Music Coordinator". I may be able to pick up one or two hours a week extra at the parish school. As I see it, I would need an extra $20,000+ to bring the household into fiscal solvency. In the short term, I have some work (at $20 an hour) doing the final revision of the Lutheran Worship Resources. I may be able to string this out for a month or two at the most. Then there remains the offer of factory work from my parishioner at Frankston. But this would be a last resort for me. Last time I talked to him, he thought he could find some stuff for me to do in the office. I have considered asking you about the possibility we once touched upon of perhaps a scholarship to study in your institute. Some study at this time may not be a bad thing--enabling me time for reflection and intellectual processing--but I would require financial support. I am still hopeful of finding part-time library work. It was unfortunate that nothing came of the two library positions I was interviewed for a fortnight ago, but I am sure something else will come up. I have a couple of applications in at the moment, and I know that a position will come up at my previous place of employment in Footscray in a week or two, which they have encouraged me to apply for. At the same time, if something were to come up at the Archdiocese, I would consider that too. I noticed that there have been advertisements in the paper for a part-time administrative secretary for a project in one of the Archdiocesan offices, and have even wondered if I might not have the skills for a position like that. As you can see, I am thinking of all possibilities!

Cathy has her two day a week job at St Paul's Lutheran Church at Box Hill. At the moment she is struggling to care for Maddy and Mia at the same time, and probably would not be coping if I was not taking things easier in the parish and making more time for them. She is thinking of taking a week or two off before I finish just to get Mia into a routine and feeding properly.

We have been kindly allowed to stay in the manse rent-free until the end of the financial year--but that will not leave very long for us to find new accommodation, and I hope to have a job by then to pay rent, bond, shifting costs etc. We will require a house with at least three bedrooms. Our current accommodation has four: Maddy has her own room, Mia sleeps with us, and we use the other two bedrooms as studies for each other (full of stuff!).

We own two cars and a motorbike. Cathy's Subaru station wagon and my bike are fully paid for, but I owe $9,160.73 on my Diahatsu Pyzar. Currently, as a pastor of the LCA, this loan is financed by the Lutheran Layperson's league at 4.5% interest per annum and a repayment schedule of $320 per month. As I have officially taken "leave of absence" rather than resigning from the Roll of Pastors entirely this arrangement will continue for the present. I have suggested to Cathy selling my car and using my bike for transport. In my estimation, after selling my car and paying off the outstanding loan, we would come out about $3000 ahead. But Cathy is less than keen on this idea, as it would severely restrict my ability to care for the children while she is at work or otherwise using her car. Of course, the bike could go, but bike riding is both a hobby and a social outlet for me which I would greatly miss. Still, I am not sure if we will be able to keep up the loan payments, plus the registration and servicing of all three vehicles. We may have to make a few tough decisions if we don't get the financial security we require.

On top of that, there are many day to day running costs that the parish have been paying for us. Of chief concern to me is our health insurance. Our health insurance is with Australian Unity, and we have a fairly high level of cover to cover maternity needs. Although we are not at the moment planning another child, changes in our method of family planning will have to allow for this eventuality! Each quarter we pay about $630 to this fund.

Other than this, we have no loans or financial commitments. At the same time we have no savings! We have always sailed pretty close to the edge financially. So that is our financial and accommodation and job situation. Naturally, I would be very grateful if there is anyway that the Archdiocese could help.

I have attached a new version of my resume, in case anyone wants it. Also, would it be possible to reclaim the two documents that I sent in with you to the Archbishop last time--the volume of Lutheran Worship Resources and the Bibliography?

I find that Peter's resignation has shaken me more than I expected, given that I knew it was going to happen. Knowing the anxiety that I am facing with the end of financial security for my family, I feel for him and Susie as they face the future. At the same time, I rejoice that they will be able to be received into the Church forthwith, and look forward to celebrating that day with them. I attended the vigil mass at Our Lady's last Saturday, and was surprisingly (?or should that be 'surprisingly surprisingly'?) struck by the intensity of my desire to be able to receive communion in the Church. I try to reassure people that I will be able to bear my time "in limbo" as I wait for the annulments to be granted, but sometimes I am 'all talk'.

David Schütz

At the same time, I received the President's latest ‘Pastor to Pastor’ newsletter.

Dear Brothers,

First of all, sincere thanks to all of you who spent time in prayer for those of us who attended the Summit on Friday the 9th.

Secondly, I want to say thanks to David Schutz, Peter Holmes and P. for the focused way that they presented their questions. Few of us who were there could not have been moved by the intensity with which these questions were troubling our brothers.

Thirdly, I want also to publicly express my appreciation to Pastors PK, GW and DB for their responses prepared at short notice. These helped to give further focus to the issues.

At the end of the day I indicated that I would need some time to consider where we go from here. To that end I had asked three teams of three people to prepare some focused issues for further study. It also had become clear to me that whatever processes were now to be followed they should be tailored for each of the brethren separately. On Tuesday I met with Peter Holmes and on Wednesday with David Schutz and on Friday with P. to a) get their impressions of the usefulness of the day and b) to test my proposals.

The meeting with David established two matters 1) there was little point continuing the discussion in any formalised way. David needed to be freed to pursue his journey. 2) In order to do that David had already come to a decision to actualize his resignation from the pastorate of Knox, Frankston and Casey at the conclusion of services on the 8th April - a month earlier than intended. I do want to make it clear that David has not resigned from the LCA. He is seeking Leave of Absence and that will be processed via DCC to GCC. He will not however participate in pastors conferences etc. He does not yet have any formal work. I commend him, Cathy and the children to you for your prayers.

The meeting with Peter also established that their was little value to be had in pursuing further formal discussions with him. On Thursday Peter put a letter on my desk which in part says:

"I must ask you to accept this letter as my resignation from the position of pastor of the Doncaster/Ivanhoe Lutheran Parish and from the office of public ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia. .....I cannot continue to lead and teach people in the way of their salvation when I can no longer believe in that which must be taught according to the Lutheran Doctrinal statements. ...So for the sake of my family's souls, and also of my own, we must obey the call of our Lord, and return to His Church. ....I hope that those who seek to form opinions on the reasons and motivation for my resignation will do so in mind of the deep grief it causes myself and wife, and that they will take into account the integrity of deciding not taking a vow that I can no longer uphold in good conscience."

I spent three hours with Peter and Susan on Thursday night exploring the above decision of Peter and the implications of it. It is now quite clear that we have no option to allow Peter and Susan and family to take the journey that they have chosen. Peter announced his decision to his congregations yesterday. Peter and Susan and his people are now dealing with the trauma of all of this. I urge your prayers for them.

Peter and the leaders of Doncaster/Ivanhoe are negotiating a terminus for this ministry in consultation with me. It will probably be in about 6 weeks time. I will meet with Peter again tomorrow and test again his decision and the implications of it.

My discussions with P. made it very clear that much is to be gained in continuing the discussions. I will be appointing a small group of pastors to engage in this process. I am also exploring the possibility that P. might spend some time at the Seminary to engage the faculty in a discussion of the questions. I urge your prayers for him, his wife and their family.

I am seeking the endorsement of DCC to my proposal to have the questions of these men placed on the Agenda of CTICR and to that end to furnish their papers and the responses to CTICR for further study and response. It has become very clear to me that these are not just Victorian questions. I have been appraised of another 10 men in other Districts who are asking the same sorts of questions.

What are the questions? In short hand they have to do with ecclessiology, magesterium, and sola scriptura.

May I also ask for your prayers for the people of the parishes of Knox and Doncaster.

I talked to both P. and Peter today. Peter said they had a very busy day yesterday with a lot of shocked reaction from people who thought this was a sudden decision rather than one carefully worked through. Thankfully, Fr Greg Pritchard has been there to support them, and Alison Fleming sent through a bunch of flowers and a hamper for Susie on Saturday. They have set Easter as the end of their ministry in the LCA and Pentecost as the day they will be received as a family into the Catholic Church. I was very pleased to hear that they will be received at Our Lady’s--so I joked that I would get to chose the music for the occasion. Peter immediately said “Not ‘A mighty fortress’!” I might give him “In thee is gladness”, however... Seriously, it will be wonderful to be worshipping together as part of the same community. Peter said that Anthony is chasing up the same issues that he is chasing for me, so that is good.

P. is aware that we can no longer meet together at his office on Wednesdays. He must not be seen to be fraternising with us, as we are now clearly “persona non grata” in the church. However, he has asked if we could not go around to visit him tomorrow night! He is looking forward to his trip to Adelaide, something which he had been planning to do in his holidays anyway.

So that is how things stand at the moment. And I notice that I have finally gone over one hundred pages with this journal! It seems remarkable to me that I have been recording these thoughts for almost a year now. But in many ways, I did not expect things to go so quickly. It amazes me that once something is said or admitted to oneself, it is like one domino being pushed over and an unstoppable chain reaction is set in place. I hope it doesn’t stall before it reaches its conclusion.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

Sunday, 11th March, 2001: On the Eve of my 35th Birthday, I make a personal committment to the Church's Authority and receive job prospects

The story above [ie. below, for blog readers!] must be completed now, but just to say at the beginning that this has been a hell of a week. Cathy woke me about 8:30 on Monday morning (I don’t usually sleep in that long, but I think the day before had wiped me!) to say that Eastern Regional Libraries were on the phone and wanted to make a time for an interview about the Branch Coordinator’s position at Montrose. We set the time for Wednesday at 1pm. Later that day, I received another phone call, this time from Mt Scopus College (a local Jewish school), about the Library Technician’s position there. We made an appointment for an interview on Tuesday at 12:30pm.

Then, in the post that day, I received two letters: one from Pastor DB and one from my District President.

The President's letter was a surprise. It was very short, but simply said:

“David, I am deeply disappointed in your bad mouthing of me. I have reports from two different events where this has happened in recent times. You are not helping anyone by such behaviour least of all yourself and ultimately you hurt our Lord. You might also find some more useful time in getting your email accessible.”

I was very surprised at this, and I immeadiately rang him (something he ought to have done for me when he heard such reports) to query him on it. The two occassions, he said, were at Zone Pastor’s meeting and at the Pastors and Wives get together last Friday. This I find remarkable--because first of all, others who were at the Zone meeting have no idea what he was talking about (unless they took the fact that I expressed disappointment with his revelation of my situation in the Pastor to Pastor newsletter as “bad mouthing” him), and secondly because the only people who were at the Pastors and Wives gathering that day were myself, Peter and Susie Holmes, and our hosts (A. and his wife), and P.'s wife. All of whom I would trust with my confidence and my life!

Yet the President's letter (actually a copy of an email he attempted to send me) has the time on the top “4:03pm Friday 2nd March”, which was less than two hours after this meeting. Who the source of this information was still remains a mystery. In any case, the whole episode was enough to make me feel like I was being “pushed” out of the LCA. Things were becoming decidedly unpleasant.

Pastor DB's letter was also disturbing.

In the wee small hours of Saturday morning at Vermont South,

Dear David,

I cannot let our ‘phone call be the last contact we had before next Friday. I humbly ask your forgiveness for speaking to you in anger, for judging your motives and actions presumptously, and for any hurt at all that I caused. There are many reasons why I spoke as I did. But, I’m not going to even try and excuse my behaviour. I simply beg your forgiveness.

David, I want to try and explain to you the depths of my reaction and feelings over you leaving our Church. You will remember that I was one of those who vigorously stood up for you in our final year at Seminary. We stood up as your classmates beside you and publically supported you against what we all regarded as unfair treatment following your vicarage. I did so because I believe that it was right, and because of my genuine affection for you.

I have defended you against those who have derided you and ridiculed you as a ‘liturgical purist’ and against the charge of being ‘too Catholic’. But much more than all this, what you said last Tuesday at Box Hill [regarding my marriage and inability to receive communion until an annulment is granted] has haunted my mind and my heart in the deepest possible way.

David, I cannot begin for one moment to appreciate what it must be like for you to face the rest of your life knowing that there will be no place for you at the Lord’s Table. The thought is too terrible. As I try to understand what you said, and what it means, it grips my heart like death.

As I search the Scriptures, I cannot see Christ in the scenario that you spoke about and which you are prepared to enter into. For the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), there was a place at the Lord’s Table. For the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Peter who on three occasions publicaly committed apostacy (John 18), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Paul who perseucted the church and murdered St Stephen (Acts 7), there is a place at the Lord’s Table.

But for David Schütz who married in faith and good conscience, who divorced in shame and repentance, and who married again in faith, good conscience and repentance, there is no place at the Lord’s Table in Rome. As I read the Universal catechism there is no way that your first marriage can be seen as invalid. From that, I cannot image David Schütz without the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of all your sins.”

If this is the teaching of Christ’s true Church, through His supreme vicar on earth, then the Pharisees need no longer be scandalised, and they need no longer ask, “Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?” (Matthew 9), because plainly he doesn’t.

I fear that this burden will be greater than you can bear. I fear also for Cathy and you and your most beloved children. I share the same pastoral concern as the Universal Catechism:

"1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise."

David, please accept this letter, with all its faults, as a testament of the love that I hold for you as a dear brother in Christ. I don’t know what else to say. I am at a loss and I am very sad. We will perhaps share a most unlikely bond--we will both be prevented from sharing the Lord’s Table in Rome.

May our heavenly Father bless you, may Christ our Saviour be with you, may the Holy Spirit’s fellowship keep you from all danger. Amen.

Your brother in Christ,

DB+

I showed these letter to Cathy. She said that she agreed with it. This was my response to DB:

Dear DB,

I can get to you, even if you can't get through to me. Both you and District President appear to be having trouble getting through to my email, but I think it is a problem with the LCA's server, not mine, since I am receiving other people's emails.

First, may I begin by saying thank you for your letter. It has clearly shown for me the depth of your pastoral concern and love. I am honoured by this.

Secondly, yesterday's encounter was the work of God... [Here follows the story I related in the last entry on this blog]...

Finally, with regard to the issue of my marriage and communion.

I do not want to sound too certain or dogmatic on this point, because I am not. I am trying to work it through on so many planes--theological, spiritual and emotional--that I am far from thinking clearly on this. Emails can sound cold and hard sometimes, so I want you to realise that what I am writing now cuts very deep to the core. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that it is actually two issues that coincide: a) the issue of communion, and b) the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Catholic practice and teaching here (and I mean not just Roman, but the whole history of the church) has acknowledged that there are situations when a person should not come to the sacrament, and when those in charge of administering the sacrament have the duty to advise someone that they would not receive it to their good if they did. These situations are usually to do with both faith and repentance for sin. In the latter case, a person who is committing a sin, but is not repentant of it, would be advised not to come to the sacrament.

With respect to divorce and remarriage, the unanimous teaching of the church has always been (according to the teaching of Christ) that anyone who does remarry after a divorce is entering a relationship that could be adulterous relationship. Now the Catholic church is doing its damnedest to uphold this witness--even if they probably could handle things better pastorally. I think it is fair to say that the Lutheran Church has capitulated to society on this one, in the name of being "forgiving" it has actually become permissive. Again, that is not a pastoral solution.

You are right when you describe the way things happened for me. I married in faith and good conscience, I divorced in shame and repentance, and I married again in faith, good conscience and repentance. The latter was only possible because at the time I fully believed that, having been forgiven for the sin of divorce, I was free in the sight of God and the Church to remarry. For this reason, I have been advised that my current marriage, though irregular, could not be viewed by the Catholic Church as a "grave" sin (ie. on the same level as adultery) because it was entered into with the understanding that I was free to remarry.

Yet in fact, I may not have been free to remarry (the jury is literally still out on that one). Here is where the LCA has got it wrong in the way it deals with divorce. We have given the impression that when a person repents for the breakdown of their marriage, and receives absolution, that that marriage is effectively dissolved, and the repentant and absolved sinner is free to remarry. But that is not the case, is it? That person still has a living spouse, and to enter into a new marriage would put one into a permanent situation of bigamy in the eyes of God. How can one who is living in a bigamous relationship (with whatever good intentions) be admitted to the sacrament? To compare it to another, perhaps more serious case: If a man were committing adultery, and his pastor knew about it, that pastor could not admit that man to communion until he had both repented of and abandoned the adulterous relationship.

Let's look at the situations you cited in your letter. The woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery were both expected to "go and sin no more". (Whether they were ever invited to the Lord's table is another matter of which we know nothing). Two people who were at the Lord's table, Peter and Paul, both repented of their sin, and were received with forgiveness. Even the tax collectors and publicans were called to repentance, and forgiveness given so that they could live a new way of life. But there cannot be absolution without the intention to put the repentance into practice by living a new and holy life.

Now, my marriage is, at least by current judgement, irregular. It is technically bigamous (I cannot bring myself to call it adulterous, although Christ's words would seem to indicate that). However, I am bound to Cathy by vows of love and faithfulness, which, as our wedding text said, I will never let leave me. I am bound in justice and righteousness to Cathy and to my children with whom God has blessed our marriage. I once intended to witness to the evil of divorce by remaining celibate for the rest of my life. Thank God that I did not keep to that resolve! O happy sin (as the hymn says) that led me to being a husband to the woman I love and a father to two beautiful daughters.

But now I fully intend to witness to the stand of the Church against the evil of divorce by living with the consequences of this decision and in due submission to the authority of God's word and church on this matter. The cost is great--as you say, I may never be able to receive the grace of God at the table of the Lord (at least until both our previous marriages are annulled, or death changes the equation one way or another). But I am not cut off from grace. I am baptised, I believe, and so I will be saved. I do not believe that I could be saved if, having recognised what I believe to be true in my deepest conscience, I went against it because I could not submit myself to it.

And here is an important point. You challenge the authority of Rome because you believe it misuses the office of the keys. Or to put it another way, because you do not agree with the way in which Rome exercises discipline, you are questioning whether it has the right to exercise such discipline. This does not follow. One must first investigate whether Rome's claim to authority is valid--did Christ give his authority to Peter and his successors to bind and loose or not? Evidently, I am convinced that he did. Having acknowledged this authority on the grounds of scripture and tradition, how could I then turn around and deny it by my refusal to submit to its teachings and discipline? What value authority, if I can choose to submit to it only when it gives me what I want?

This whole business is about lawful authority under Christ. I do not need someone to stroke my soul and tell me it is all alright if it isn't all alright. Can you disolve my first marriage? Can you tell me, with full authority, that my current marriage is regular and right in the sight of God? Or can you even tell me the opposite? You have declared my first marriage valid, how then can you declare my current marriage valid? What are you trying to say? That my first marriage has been disolved by an act of the state? Can it do that? after what Christ said about "let no-one separate"?

My only hope is to fully submit myself to Christ's Lordship and authority on the matter, and to do this, I must seek out those who exercise this authority. If they judge me to be free to remarry, I will accept their judgement. If they judge me not to have been free to enter into a new marriage relationship, I will accept their judgement on this too. I will never sever my marriage with Cathy--what? shall we sin all the more that grace may abound even more?--but I will live to the full the covenant of marriage with her that I should have lived with my first wife, and I will live a life of prayer and faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will go to every mass knowing that in this mass the body and blood of Christ is indeed being offered for my sin whether I commune or not.

There is probably so much here that you would say is not "rightly dividing law and gospel". But things are not always as black and white as "law" and "gospel". I am a broken, sinful human being, who never the less is justified through faith in Christ in baptism, and I live by the mercy of God. I do not demand that he change his law for me. It is enough to know that Christ has died for me, and that I will sit at God's table in eternity when I will be free from all brokenness, and all the grey stains of sin.

In the meantime, I trust that God is leading me, and that only if I turn back in fear from the race that is set before me will I fail to receive the promised reward.

David Schütz

This exchange of letters became an opportunity for Cathy and I to frankly discuss our marriage, our previous marriages, the question of how we were going to raise the children, and the matter of communion. There is much more to discuss yet, but we touched on several topics:

1) I reiterated that I was committed to my marriage to her. If the Tribunal decides that my first marriage was valid, then I will not regard myself any less married to Cathy, I will simply recognise that our marriage cannot be regarded as a sacramental marriage.

2) I will not continue to commune in the Lutheran church, even while I am awaiting a decision from the tribunal. Cathy was a bit taken aback by this. I think she thought that I would freely commune with her at St Paul's and that she would be able to receive communion with me in the Catholic Church. I tried to explain about "validity" of the sacrament, and how this was dependant upon the validity of the ordination of the celebrant.

3) I will not begrudge her or the church if the annulment is not granted, and I will live as a non-communing Catholic. I will regard God as having given me an inestimable blessing in Cathy and my children for which I will be ever thankful, even if I cannot have the privilege of receiving communion

4) It is natural that I should want to share my faith with my children, and so have them grow up with a love for the Catholic church. At the same time, I want them to grow up knowing the best from the Lutheran tradition also. I do not now want to set in concrete any promises such as "we will bring them up Catholic/Lutheran", because I believe that Cathy needs time to get to know the Catholic Church also. There is prejudice there that is not her fault, and she wants to learn more about this "new" faith of mine. Her feelings with regard to how the children are raised may change. For now, she is just struggling to come to terms with the fact that I include the Hail Mary with the Our Father and the Creed when I pray with Maddy.

On Tuesday, I wrote this letter to Fr [now Bishop] Anthony Fisher.

Dear Anthony,

This has been quite a week. I have my interview with Eastern Regional Libraries tomorrow (Wednesday), but today I also was interviewed for a position at Mt Scopus College in their primary school library.

Just before the interview, I went into St Scholastica's across the road, and lit a candle and prayed before the image of our Lady. I believe the interview went well, but I have heard nothing yet.

However, Fr Greg Pritchard surprised me by phoning to offer me the position of Music Coordinator for his parish (2 days a week, $10,000) as soon as I wanted it! I would have liked to have said "yes" straight away, but it will depend on what happens. Both these jobs I am being interviewed for are 3.5 to 4 days a week, so that would leave me time to take up Greg's proposal.

Please pray for me--a lot! It seems as if things could be falling into place for me just as I am feeling a little pressure from the LCA to leave. The Summit is this Friday too. Hopefully by Friday I will know the outcome of the interviews. It could be a day for celebration on Friday night! (not trying to count my chickens before they hatch).

Cathy and I have just had a long heart to heart about the nature of our former marriages and our committment to our current marriage in the light of the changing scene. This was a very constructive discussion. We are still trying to finalise a time when you can come for dinner.

God bless. See you soon.

David Schütz

Yesterday, I took Maddy to Mass at Our Lady’s (Ringwood - Fr Pritchard's parish) before going to her swimming lesson. Fr Paul was saying Mass, and Maddy was very good for a change.

Afterward, Fr Greg came to the playground where I was playing with Maddy. He was returning the summit papers that I had left behind at the Holmes’ last night.

We fell to talking about the Music Coordinator position, and he showed me the organ and the music collection. I realised that I really could do this, and moreover that I wanted to do it. He asked me if a May 1st starting date would be alright, and I said I thought it would be.

At that stage, I don’t think that I had really realised what I was doing, but during Maddy’s swim time, I realised that what I had decided to do was to take the job regardless, and seek part time work to fill in the rest of the time. I felt that this job would be important for three reasons:

1) It was the sort thing I was gifted at and enjoyed doing

2) It would give me a good background for future employment in a liturgical field in the Archdiocese

3) It would give me a meaningful place in a Catholic parish community

The more I thought about it, I realised that I didn’t want to do Holy Week at Knox/Frankston/Casey. Not only did I not have the physical energy for it, but emotionally I didn’t want to do it. I began to think more about Palm Sunday as a possible “last service” day, and taking Holy Week as a holiday. As I think about it now, I would like to make Easter the last time that I celebrate that feast as a Lutheran. I would like to receive communion one last time with Cathy, and then start anew the next week.

When I got home and went through the paper to look at what was on offer, and I realised that I didn’t really want to apply for any of the jobs there. I began what was a very up and down day for me--from being depressed about the fact that I may not have gotten either of the jobs that I had been interviewed for, to being excited at the fact that I had finally made the decision to pack it in, and set a date for it.

When Cathy came home, I suggested to her my idea, and told her that I had definitely decided to do the job at Our Lady’s. She was concerned that I was swapping one “every Sunday” job for another, so I rang Greg to clarify with him the expectations. Greg said that he envisaged 2 weekends in four being the usual, depending on the roster, of which I was in charge. So that settled that. I decided to let the school component of the job rest for a while, but I need to follow that up soon with the principal.

This morning I went to church at Our Saviour's to discover that they had begun thinking in terms of Palm Sunday as being the last service also, and had begun making other arrangements for Holy Week and Easter. They have decided now that I was able to confirm this to have a farewell BBQ, inviting Frankston and Casey people also, the night before, on the 7th of April.

But the really pleasant surprise is that have offered the Manse to us rent-free until the end of the financial year. They intend to sell it, to pay off some of their debt on the church. The district is also cutting $60k from the debt (basically the interest of the last 10 years), as long as the congregation continues with its pay-back scheme to which it has committed itself. So everything is turning out fine there as well. The rent-free offer will be worth about two or three thousand dollars to Cathy and I and give us a chance to save up for the shift. It also gives us a definite date to work towards.

Sunday, 4th March, 2001: In which the consequences of my decision begin to bite

On Friday night I had a long, interesting, but in the end, disappointing and saddening discussion with Pastor DB on the phone. I had rung him to let him know that I was sending through the service outline for Knox for Sunday (today – he is taking the service there today while I go down to Casey and Frankston). Then we got into a discussion regarding what to expect from Friday’s summit, and finally we got into a discussion of the issues that are at stake. We talked from about 9:30pm to just after midnight.

During the phone call, he told me that in his opinion I should not be currently exercising my ministry, since I believe that the ministry of the Lutheran Church has no validity. He also criticized the way in which I made my resignation, and the fact that I am continuing to work as a Lutheran pastor, when everyone knows that I have already decided to join the Catholic Church. I became very angry at this point and said that I was completing this three month period in obedience to the President and at the express request of my congregation. At the same time, this was my employment and I currently had no other economic option for supporting my family. Furthermore I pointed out that I had not wanted my desire to enter the Catholic Church to be generally known, but that the President himself had broken confidence and made it known.

But when I got to the point that I had first concluded that I would need to become a Catholic 11 months ago, he said “I wish you hadn’t told me that--you have just fallen in my estimation”--as if this was a conclusion that could be acted upon as suddenly as it was made! When I defended my current ministry on the basis that I was doing what was required of a Lutheran Pastor, he then brought up the subject of the sermon I gave in my parish last Reformation Day (October last year—I had sent him a copy at the time). He said he had never intended to tell me this, but he was very disappointed at with it. It was, he said, an “historical lecture defending the Catholic Church” rather than preaching the gospel, and that I had misused the pulpit.

I hardly slept that night. I was so angry at what I took to be his unfair treatment of me. The next day I sent him this email:

Here is the service order.

With regard to last night's phone conversation, I apologise for keeping you up so late and for pushing the issue so far. We should have terminated the call at the first instance, and we would both have left it with a much higher regard for one another than I now fear we have reached.

Several points I feel I should make now, with the reflection of half the night behind me.

1) I obviously believe in some way that the ministry I am now exercising is "valid", or I wouldn't be doing it.

Your assertion that I do not consider what I am doing "valid" and that I am just "playing church" was wide of the mark. The word "valid" holds a certain meaning for me which I do not think it means for you, so we misunderstood each other when you asked whether I consider my current ministry "valid" and I said "no". I do consider my ministry as a Lutheran pastor to be valid for the remainder of the period between now and when I undertake my "leave of absence." I also consider it "efficacious". I consider it to be both these things on the basis of a) the external word of God, b) the external call of the LCA through its president and the congregations, and c) because this ministry is received in faith by the members of my congregations.

You cannot charge me with dishonesty or a lack of integrity in what I am doing. In a perfect world, one would naturally, having made a decision to change denominational allegiance, immediately retire from the one and enter into the other. In a slightly less than perfect world, in which such decisions (even once made) need time to grow and take time to act upon, one would immediately retire and go into "retreat" for the period between the moment a decision is first formed in one’s mind until the time when one can fully enter into the new reality.

But I am living in a far from perfect world, and I am a far from perfect person. The decision I made 11 months ago needed a great deal of thinking and praying through. It needed talking with colleagues (such as yourself), a testing of the waters, and a re-testing. It needed investigation. Whatever was in my heart needed to be tested against objective reality. In this time of testing, I had to continue my ministry, whatever I thought of it.

In a word, I was called to be faithful--to lash myself to the wheel, and do the job that God had given me to do "while it was day", whatever I was beginning to think of it. It may seem incidental to you that in all this I had to act as a married man with a young family to support, or that you may think that on this basis I was "just in the job for the money", but this would be very unjust--and unpastoral.

I had to weigh up all sides of the decision. I couldn't just "drop everything" and follow my hearts desire because that would have been unjust to my family. When the fulness of time came, and it came before I was ready for it, but I recognise the hand of God in that, I did make the decision to resign. I made this decision freely. The President did not force me to make it. It was a decision between the call to Hope Valley that would have required me to affirm my Lutheran ministry, and resignation. The only thing I could do with integrity was resign.

So I did resign, and I did it in accordance with the directions the President gave me. I intentionally did not go into the issues behind my resignation, because I knew this would cause insurmountable pastoral problems of the sort you have identified. Unfortunately, the President himself--without my permission--chose to tell all the pastors in the Victorian District of my issue. Once this matter was out in the public arena, there was no way it could be stopped. It was better that I told my congregations myself before they heard on the grape vine.

In all this, I don't know how I could have acted with greater integrity toward either my congregations, the LCA, my president, my family, my self and my God. I feel it is grossly unjust of you to lay upon me the burden of instant cessation of all pastoral duties. This is taking things in such a black and white way, when indeed, it is all a messy gray. I am neither at A nor at B, but in a wide chasm or limbo between the two. I became angry on the phone with you because you were not taking into account the reality of my situation. You were dealing with me as a theory, a theological problem, and not as a real human being in a real human situation. You were seeing one side of the story only. Besides all this, I AM resigning. What more can you truly want from me? What other blood do you want to squeeze from a body that is already almost fully drained?

2) My reformation sermon.

Your assertion that in the last 12 months I have been acting as something of an undercover agent for the Roman church in the Lutheran church is unjust. Yes, of course, you can see in my preaching and ministry over the last 12 months an attempt to work out my inner struggles. It is partly because I have realised I was doing this that I have accepted resignation, when many people urged me to continue on in my ministry and work it out with my hand to the plough.

But can't you see in that Reformation Day sermon a sincere attempt to find a Lutheran approach to the problem of catholicity? This may not be obvious to you, but to me I can clearly see elements of that sermon that I could not affirm as a Catholic because I was preaching as a Lutheran. Yet at that time I was preaching what I believed to be the truth.

You say that I wasn't rightly dividing Law and Gospel. Well, fine, you have every right to say that. You say that I wasn't preaching Christ. Well, fine, you have every right to that opinion too. Perhaps all this proves is that I am perfectly suited for a Church which, in the opinion of many Lutheran theologians, errs in the fact that it doesn't rightly divide Law and Gospel and doesn't preach Christ.

I preached the sermon that I did then because a) I believed it to be true, b) I believed it to be God's word for that situation, c) I believed it had to be said, d) I was confronting what I regarded to be a sin in the Lutheran church, namely, an uncharitable celebration of Reformation Day that attacked the "straw man" of the Catholic Church, when Catholics are and should be regarded as brothers and sisters in Christ. Now this probably does not justify me in your eyes, and fair enough. I say only that I am glad you are not my eternal judge.

My spiritual director warned me that there would be a change of relationship between me and others. I have strongly attempted to avoid this on my part. But I have already noticed it happening. First with one of my elders, and now with you. I guess I should expect this and I can be thankful that this problem is not more widespread than it currently is. But I am disappointed that you felt you had to say the things you did on the phone last night. You were kicking a man who was already down. I don't know about rightly dividing law and gospel, but I thought a part of that doctrine requires, not only in preaching, but in pastoral relationships, to recognise when someone needs the law and when someone needs the gospel. Right at this time, I am grasping for every bit of gospel I can get my hands on. Only the gospel can enable me to complete my ministry and make the transition that lies ahead of me. I feel like a drowning man--I am getting weary of the long swim until my resignation becomes final and I am trying to keep my head about water. What I need now is help to reach the finishing line, not someone dragging me under just a few metres from the end of the race.

David

That email expresses well the emotion that I was feeling at the time. I then went on an all day ride with my motorcycle club--for the first time in about three months--and got it all out of my system. Or so I thought. I woke this morning thinking to myself, “How can I celebrate the Eucharist with this ill will toward DB on my heart?” Then God stepped in.

I was running close to schedule on this morning. At 8:10am, I went down to the Knox Church office with my sermon and service order on my floppy disk to print it out on the office computer. I still needed to buy the bread for the service at Casey. I waited for the computer to boot up (a long process down there), put in my disk, went to print it off and it said "Disk error". I could not access my document, so I had to rush home, copy it off again onto a new disk, and back down to print it out (after rebooting the machine). This time it began printing out, so I rushed down to the shop to buy a roll of bread, and got back to find the machine had stalled after one page saying "Disk error". By this time it was 8:35am and I had to be at Casey by 9am, so I rang ahead to tell them I would be late. I put the phone down, grabbed my gear (I realised I would have to preach ex corde and minus manuscriptus), and as I was heading out of the door it suddenly occurred to me that if I didn't hurry up, I would run into DB arriving to take conduct the service here.

I didn't feel in the emotional state to be able to handle a meeting at that point. I turned for the car, and there he was, getting out of his car. I couldn't just drive away--that would have been utterly unforgivable, so I went to him to shake hands and wish him God's blessings for the Eucharist. But he wouldn't let go of my hand, and he told me he had been trying to send me a letter via email which he had written the night before at 3am. He couldn’t get it through, so he had posted it. As he was talking I was thinking "I want to hug this man just to show him that I do love him and I don't hate him"--but I didn't have the guts. Then suddenly he hugged me, and planted a great kiss on my cheek. That he did have the guts is something that I am very grateful for. That "holy kiss" brought tears to my eyes. When I got into the car and it suddenly occurred to me that without all that hoo-hah with the computer I would have missed him. I began to cry and I think I cried half the way to Berwick.

Thursday, 1st March 2001: In which the President calls a "Summit" to discuss our cases, I prepare my case, & receive a letter from my godmother

I am losing enthusiasm for this journal. The reason, I think, is that I have few things I still need to work through. Writing has been for me not so much a way of recording the journey, as of actually making the journey. Now, although much is happening, and there is much that someone in the future would probably be interested in (eg. How did he go about telling everyone, and what were their reactions), yet little is happening in the sense of my journey. It is as if I have come to a landing half-way along the stairway, or the lift has become stuck between floors, and there is little to do but to sit and wait it out. I am waiting for my annulment. I am waiting for a job. I am waiting for my resignation to take effect. I am simply waiting...

In the mean time, the District President has summoned a ‘Diet’ to meet next Friday. Yesterday he emailed all Victorian pastors with the following email:

Dear Brethren,

I am convening a summit for Friday the 9th March at St. Pauls Box Hill from 10.00am - 3.00pm.

The purpose of the Summit is to clarify and discuss the doctrinal concerns of the brethren David Schutz, Peter Holmes and [P.]. To that end I am asking David, Peter and [P.] to prepare an A4 (1 page) specifying the concerns that are troubling you. I am further asking that [Pastors PK, DB and GW] prepare an A4 (1 page) response to David, [P.] and Peter. NB. David, [P.] and Peter send your statement to [PK] (David), [DB]([P.]) and [GW] (Peter) by Tuesday of next week at the latest and then kindly email it to all of the brethren listed above.

...I have invited the people named above for specific reasons. They are either pastors on DCC, Zone Counsellors, colleagues in ministry (team ministry, class mates) or they have been asked to fulfill a specific role in regard to each of the brethren. I have also been conscious of the need to try and avoid overpowering the brethren with concerns. If I have overlooked someone who falls into one of the above categories please contact me.

Those of you not specifically involved please use a proportion of your day on the Friday for specific prayer for those attending the summit. I urge all of you to make this matter a matter of prayerful concern in the days leading up to the summit and beyond it.

He followed this up with a second email:

Dear Brothers,

If you re-read my email on this matter you will note that I sent an invite to 21people and then sent a copy to all of you. The 21 were [RA, AB, DB, PG, PH, JH, AH, Holmes, VK, PK, GL, SM, P., SP, GS, CS, Schutz, DS, GS, GW and JW].

I did say that if I have overlooked anyone according to the criteria for invitation in email, please let me know and I will invite. If someone else would very much like to be there please let me know.

I also called the rest of you to prayer.

We got a foretaste of what it this "Diet of Box Hill" would be like when Zone Pastor’s conference met on Tuesday. I had asked for time to tell the brethren what was happening, and Peter [Holmes] and P. were invited to join in. Most people are stunned at “how far” I have “gone”.

Although by now all these questions are simply academic for me, since I have committed myself to the path that I am on, I have drafted the following questions for the Summit:

1) In ecumenical theology, two ecclesiologies are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a visible reality which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an invisible reality that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments. For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?

2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever the Word and Sacraments (the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what must we say of our church when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy that is supposed to bring it into existence?

3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. how is it communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?

4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future.

5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on the doctrine of the ministry, since there is an inherant ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly refered to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). GL’s paper at our last Pastors Conference demonstrated the difficulty in trying to resolve this ambiguity. Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately chosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?

6) The LCA regards the external validation of the call by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is confered from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises the authority of the episcopate (CA 28), the 16th Century saw a radical break in the continuity of the orders when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised?

7) The historic episcopate and episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a tangible continuity of authority has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired?

8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition?

9) Sasse: “Gentlmen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given the priority of the Roman Catholic Church (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the sin of schism by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, namely, apostacy from the catholic faith. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostasised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?

10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. How does a Lutheran answer this statement?

I was talking to AB on the phone today (I also spent about an hour talking this morning to Pastor RT, a cousin of my mother-in-law who is preparing stuff for me for the Worship Resources--and I think this primed me up for the chat with A.), and I realised just how much conscience has played a part in what I am doing. If I could have gone any other way than I have and still been true to my conscience, I would have taken it. I was a bit stunned at a letter I received from aunt and godmother yesterday. It read as follows:

To dear David and Cathy,

You have been much in our thoughts and prayers in recent weeks. While we continue to disagree with just about everything in your rationale for the direction you have chosen, David, we hope that, ‘ere long, your theological turmoil will be replaced with peace. While we continue to believe that you are not acting wisely but makng your own and Cathy’s life very difficult, we want you to know we love you both and will be here to walk with you on the journey. In the final analysis, those of us who lvie under the thoelogy of the cross are called to suffer with and for eachother. We wish you well in the weeks ahead, as you look for a job and another place to live. You continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep in touch.

God bless,

Why should I find this letter disturbing? After all, Cathy read it as very supportive. The fact is, I think, that I feel uncomfortable with the notion that I have simply “chosen” a direction on the basis of a “theological rationale”. There is nothing “rational” about this (although I will admit that originally the questions were primarily intellectual and theological)! In the end, it has become such a matter of conscience and of faith and of integrity, that I could do no other. If this is what Martin Luther felt when he stood before the Diet of Worms, then I know just what he meant. He was personally convinced of the truth of his position, and he declared that he could not budge from it even if he wanted to. I feel much the same way. How I wish I had been able to accept the call to Hope Valley! There is still a little bit of me that pipes up from time to time and says “If JW turns the call down, you could say you want to be reconsidered!” But of course that bridge has now been definitively burned. There is no going back. There is, in fact, no going anywhere but forward.

And the fact of the matter is that the way forward may indeed be the way to the goal that God is leading me, and to turn back would be to turn away from the very destiny that he has laid out for me. Yet he is only revealing one step at a time--literally. I feel like I am walking across a chasm on an invisible bridge: stepping out into a nothingness that only becomes visible stone beneath my foot just as I am putting it down and shifting my weight onto it, such that I need to trust and to place my life into the decision to take each step. The stone bridge may not materialise, and I may fall forward into the chasm. But so far, the stone has been there, carrying me on. To use a more biblical picture--it is like stepping out of the boat, and walking on the water towards Jesus. I have to keep my eyes focused on the goal, and step out in trust.

And it may all come out right. I may get my annulment. Cathy may eventually get her application in and she might get her annulment. I might then be received into the church. I might get a job in the Church. I might even be considered for ordination. Then how wonderful it will all be! All that my heart desires may yet be given to me.

But of course, it might be the direct opposite. I might not get my annulment. There might never be a job for me in the church. I might never be received into the Catholic church. Trying to raise our children when Cathy and I belong to two different churches may be a disaster. I may be reduced to working in a factory somewhere. Then what will it all have been for? For my conscience and for my integrity and for my witness to the truth. And I will have made myself a martyr without any recognition of the effort it cost me. This is the worst of it. I and all I am doing may simply be ignored and forgotten.

Yet here the words of Christ from yesterday’s Ash Wednesday gospel ring in my ears: Do not do your works of righteousness before men, for if you do, you will have recieved all your reward. I have to be certain I am not doing this for fame or notoriety. If in the end, it goes as I have said in the paragraph above, and not as in the paragraph above that, then I will have done my duty and only my duty as a servant. And as in one of Jesus parables, does a slave expect to be praised for doing his duty?

I think I will stop now. Cathy is talking on the phone still, and I would like to pray.

Saturday, 24th February 2001: In which I talk to Fr Anthony about my annulment application, and begin reading the Catechism

Things are preceding slowly at the moment. I have had no “bites”--not even “nibbles”--from the job market, but I am remaining hopeful. Not getting a job before May is now my biggest worry. Not much of a worry, though... I had an interview with Library Locums [an agency for placing librarians on temp contracts] on Wednesday, and I remain hopeful of something coming up in that department sooner or later. In the mean time, I continue applying for jobs. There was nothing in this morning’s paper however, and nothing new on the internet either.

I saw Fr Anthony yesterday. It was good to see him again. He is concerned that nothing much seems to be happening with Cathy’s application for annulment, and we discussed things we could do to make it easier for Cathy. Two suggestions: first, we will have Anthony around to dinner soon so that he can meet Cathy; second, I will try to make it possible for Cathy to take [baby] Mia and herself off somewhere for two or three days so that she can make a start on her application. I have brought both of these suggestions to Cathy, and she was quite agreeable to both.

I said to Anthony that I really wasn’t worried about Cathy’s application being in straight away. Before long I will know the outcome of my own application, and then, if it is negative there will be no point in Cathy applying. Anthony agreed. Second, I said that if I get a positive answer then the delay in Cathy’s annulment will not be a great concern to me, since I have valued the time that God has given me to fully consider what I am doing. Anthony was not so agreeable on this point. He said, with some emphasis, “I want to give you the Eucharist”. This was very gratifying, as it seems that there is no doubt about my convictions at least from his (their) side. Peter [Holmes], on the other hand, has been told that they want him to test his decision a little more.

I raised again my supreme annoyance at the generosity of the Holy See in recognising Mormon baptism [this was still a disputed issue at this point in 2001]. I even asked (half joking) if there was a chance I might get an audience with the Holy Father when he comes out (if he comes out) later in the year, and make a personal appeal to him. Anthony said that he needs to cure me from this Lutheran “voluntarism” (a new term for me) that makes us think that the saying of something can make it so, and that the Pope has the power to make something so which is, in reality, not so. Fair enough, of course. I knew that.

I also said that I have no doubt that Cathy’s annulment will be granted if mine is. Anthony, on the bare evidence he has, agreed.

We talked a little about “grave” and “venial” sin--a distinction that I have not been used to making, and the reasons for this distinction. Anthony compared our relationship to God like a marriage relationship, where there are some offences that fundamentally threaten the relationship, while there are others that, while making the relationship rocky and difficult, do not fundamentally do so. This made sense.

We discussed also whether or not my remarriage was a grave sin. Anthony said that on the evidence he has, he would not consider it so, since at the time of marrying, neither Cathy nor I had any notion that we were not free to marry, nor did we think that what we were actually doing was contracting a bigamous marriage in contradiction of God’s law.

However, the discussion made me very aware that there are grave sins that I have committed that do need confession and absolution (I don’t think Anthony believed this, and I didn’t go into details with him since he is not my confessor--nor probably ever will be), and so towards the end, I asked him if there was any possibility of my being admitted to the sacrament of confession even though I have not been confirmed nor admitted to communion. He said that it may be possible--in the same way that a new convert usually will receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving communion, and he will check this out with his canonist friends.

Anthony has encouraged me to hope to attain to a life of holiness, and I will sincerely try to do this.

I have realised that a certain “schizophrenia” has characterised my Lutheran/Catholic life. While this has begun to be resolved, there is another schizophrenia -- that of hardened sinner and sanctified saint -- which is even more urgent to be overcome.

I have now received a copy of the Catechism, and am working my way through it. This has been made more difficult by the fact that I have one of the early translations that needs all the corrections done. I did it once with pen--but it looks very untidy, so now I am downloading the revised sections from the net, and will cut and paste them into my copy. It’s one way of getting to know the contents, at least!!!

In preparing my sermon on the Transfiguration for tomorrow, I have used a lot of material from the Catechism. Nothing that is remotely “un-Lutheran”, of course, but I have discovered that there is a good deal of excellent exegesis in the Catechism that is really useful.

I rang the pastor who works as a counsellor in my parish yesterday to tell him of what was happening, since Cathy would like to use him as a witness. I also talked to [a friend] whose marriage I will be celebrating in a month or so on the phone about my decision today. I ran into [some aquaintances] from the Moorabbin parish at the joint regional service at Casey last Sunday, and they were quite surprised by my decision. [One dear old lady] from Casey though is quite convinced that I am doing the right thing. “I knew all along”, she said! I am afraid though that this will just convince her that the Lutheran Church has nothing in common with the Catholic Church. Probably she is right after all... It is strange now--I can agree with those Lutherans who want to ordain women, and who want to be anti-Catholic, because I see this now as a perfectly valid living out of some aspects of the Lutheran creed.

Thursday 15th February, 2001: In which it is all in the open

There are now no more secrets.

At tonight’s open meeting of the church council and elders of the Knox congregation, I told them everything about my journey to the point where I am at the moment. It was a difficult thing to do. I told them that although I would have liked to have kept the reasons for my resignation personal, to talk about only in private with those who would like to know, that the District President's email to the pastors has put this into the public arena, and that they would hear from someone else if not from me.

There was some shock, I think. [X] was the first to speak, saying that no-one should really be surprised given what I had been preaching over recent months. [X2] reacted very much according to his experience of the Catholic Church in South American—sprouting out some very negative stuff. [X3, an elder] had had some warning, so she was a rather moderating influence for a change. So was [X4], although she may have already known, since I had a very frank discussion with her husband up at Martin Luther Homes last week (he had guessed what it was all about). [X5] said she would follow me wherever I went—I hope she wasn’t serious! [X6, another elder] expressed some concern that now he did not know what to do—and he would have to consider worshipping elsewhere until such time as I had completed my ministry at Knox.

There was some discussion regarding the three month period until the conclusion of my ministry at Knox, some thinking it would be best if I went straight away rather than dragging it out. I assured everyone that I would continue to be bound by my ordination vows in the conduct of my ministry, just as I always have been. In fact, my sermons and teaching will probably be less controversial than before. Some expressed disappointment at this!

It was really hard to tell them, and now I cannot really believe that I have. Can everything that I have held so close to my heart for so long really now be public knowledge? How do I conduct my ministry now, knowing that they know what I really am? Never have I been so honest about my Catholic faith. I feel good about it—but also scared, because this drives a very real wedge between me and the congregation.

Yesterday I met for our usual Wednesday session with Peter Holmes and P., but this time at the Doncaster manse, since Peter was looking after his two children while Suzie was on a three day retreat. I challenged P. up front for not objecting to the District President's draft of his “Pastor to Pastor” letter. P. said that he was perfectly happy with the proposed approach. He said “He has treated me as I deserve”, to which I mumbled “You must be a dog then...”.

Someone asked me tonight if I felt betrayed by the President—and yes, I think I do (not for the first time either!). Still, P. is now talking a very different tune. He wants to prepare some statement or do some ground work before the “forum” (or “Diet of Worms” as Pete calls it), and said: “We’re all in this together.” That certainly is a different approach to the one he has taken so far. And he hasn’t even met with Fisher yet. This time it was us who had to tell him that we are all coming at this from different ways (Peter: What is truth; Me: Historical continuity; P.: realism vs nominalism), and with different consequences.

Last night, I had a phone call from Pastor BA [himself a convert to Lutheranism from Presbyterianism]. It was hard to tell this dear, sainted father in the faith, under whose hands I was ordained to the office of the ministry, my reasons for leaving. He said that he had once considered Rome as a student, and also that he was very distressed by the LCA’s current situation, but still he could not imagine going to Rome. He feels very strongly the injustices of Rome over against the protestant martyrs. I didn’t raise with him the issue of those who were Catholic martyrs under Henry and Elizabeth...

Then this afternoon, Father Greg Pritchard invited Peter and me to have dinner with him and with his new assistant priest, Father Paul, who is a convert from Anglicanism. This was a delightful occasion, and I especially valued exploring with Greg the ramifications of being a divorced and remarried Catholic for parish life. I appreciate the care that Greg is showing toward us.

So now it is almost midnight again. I am tired. I have to go and wake Cathy up—she was putting Maddy to bed, and is probably asleep herself as usual. I am aware that there are great gaps here in my journal, and that I have not written down all that has been said (eg. at today’s luncheon). But, like St John, I feel that if I wrote everything the whole world could not contain it.

One thing I do need to say is that I find it hard to take a starting point for my story when I need to give it, and furthermore, that I find just about impossible to come up with a single statement of why I have decided in favour of the authority of Rome over against the authority of the Lutheran Church. The argument, once started however, easily rolls on. Again, it is a problem with starting points.

Tuesday, 13th February, 2001: In which My District President Broadcasts My Confidences to All and Sundry

Although the last two weeks have been momentous in terms of my journey, I have not been in the frame of mind to enter much into my journal. As I have said, I spent the past week in peace. Very significant was a meeting last Thursday with the Casey congregation where I was clear and open about my reasons for resignation. They seemed to need to know this, so that they could come to terms with my decision. They were quite accepting. I am hoping for a similar reaction from a congregational meeting at Knox this Thursday.

In the mean time, my district president issued the following in his “Pastor to Pastor” newsletter yesterday:

Omnium Gatherum

Many of you will have heard directly from David Schutz that he has resigned as pastor of the Knox, Frankston and Casey parish (effective around May) and is applying to the LCA for 2 years leave of Absence. I am deeply saddened by this decision and in particular by the reasons that occasion it. David wrote:

I have growing doubts about my interior call to the ministry of the Lutheran Church. These doubts have made it increasingly difficult for me to function as a public representative of the LCA.

David will be seeking other employment and using the time to fully explore the issue enumerated above. Bound up with this issue is the possible renunciation of membership in the LCA and the joining of the Roman Catholic Church. [My emphasis--I considered this more or less confidential information] I urge your prayers for David, Cathy and their children.

I am also in discussion with two other brothers: [Here he names the person I have referred to in this journal as "P."] and Peter Holmes who have similar concerns to David. Those concerns revolve around the question of Authority. At the recent meeting of the Pastors of DCC, endorsement was given to my proposal to appoint pastoral advisors/carers to each of these men (that also includes David and Cathy). I am also exploring the possibility of a forum of pastors where these concerns can be aired among us in a very focused way. I urge your prayers also for ["P."] and Peter and their families.

John Wilksch [my father's cousin, then pastor at Dandenong] has been called to Hope Valley Homes (Adelaide) as an associate pastor with John Hartwich in aged care ministry....

I was very disappointed with this. Cathy was actually angry, and rang her own pastor to get it all of her chest this morning (since the president has appointed him as our ‘pastoral carer’, she thought she would let him have it!). I sent a copy of the president's email to Anthony Fisher with the following comments:

I am rather disappointed with [my district president] for the following reasons:

1) He here expresses nothing but disappointment in my decision. When I last talked to him, he said he also felt joy that I had decided to affirm my faith in the Catholic Church.

2) He correctly quoted from my circular letter the only reason I have publically given for seeking leave of absence. I invited anyone who wanted to know more to contact me personally. Many have done so, and I have been as frank with them as the situation demanded. I think he rather overstepped the mark by publically stating the reasons I gave him in confidence.

3) He put a negative spin on my decision by saying that I was considering "renouncing" the LCA--I may be leaving it, but I wouldn't have used the word "renounce".

4) He included [P.] and Peter in this. Peter is a long way from being ready for his questions to be public knowledge, and [P.] won't even admit to himself that he is thinking about becoming Catholic, let alone anyone else.

5) He has decided on a process without consulting any of us; and appointed "pastoral carers", not only for ourselves, but for our wives as well, again, without any consultation.

I also understand that he may have contacted George [Pell] asking him to tell his priests to maintain their distance from us. If he has done this, I take it as a personal affront.

I am disappointed, but I really feel for [P.] and Peter. I am already as good as out of it. Please pray for us.

Peter and Susie were very upset over this. The District President is demanding that they jump through all sorts of hoops. I do not understand why I was spared all this.

It just so happened, that today I was on a scheduled retreat with the President and five other pastors. I was feeling ill at ease all day, probably due to the President's letter of the night before, but I shared my “emotional journey” rather than “theological journey” with the brothers towards the end of the day.

I also took the president to task privately during lunch time re his comments in the newsletter. Apparently P. was shown these comments during his interview yesterday and did not object. I am a bit annoyed at P., although I know I shouldn’t be. But he has walked with us so far along this journey, but now appears to be turning back at the last minute. And how could he not have realised, seeing the President's letter, that those comments would cause heartache for Peter and me?

The President tried to use the image of “wandering in wilderness” for me with the brothers today. I corrected him and said I prefered to use the “Abraham” image--in the desert maybe, but not aimlessly wandering. He still seems to think, though, that I will come back to the Lutheran fold. He must be kidding! It would require such an about face...

On the way home, I was thinking about the fact that I may never be received into the Catholic Church (because of my marital status). Then, with the district president's wilderness image in mind, I came to thinking about Moses--a member of God’s people, leading them right up to the promised land, but not being allowed to go in himself, instead only viewing it from the top of Mt Nebo.