Brandon Booth
MollieAbout that letter to the editor, President K.
Letters to the editor in response to my piece for the Wall Street Journal ran yesterday. There were a whopping five letters! Considering the space restrictions for letters to the editor, that’s a huge response. Many of you told me that you sent letters in and I’m sorry they couldn’t all be published.
Anyway, an edited version of President Kieschnick’s letter was published, wherein he disputed my claims about the LCMS being divided. And then there were four letters that disagreed with President Kieschnick. It almost makes me feel bad for the guy. It really couldn’t look any worse for him. Here are the other letters:
The Church is not our grandfather’s, nor is it the church of pop psychology needs-based marketing, it is Christ’s Church and any matter of the Church needs to be reviewed in the light of Scripture. It is highly ironic that the church that claims direct lineage to Martin Luther, defines truth as the product of church bylaws and bureaucratic processes apart from Scripture, rather than the Scriptures themselves (Sola Scriptura). This is the very same church-politic mindset Martin Luther found himself battling against 500 years ago.
Ed Popyk
Dearborn, Mich.As a former guest on “Issues, Etc.” and as a listener to the show I was very unhappy that it was cancelled. I can’t help but conclude that the cancellation was somehow related to the deep divisions that exist in our denomination and that are referred to in the article. While many publicly pretend that the divisions do not exist, as a pastor in the denomination and as a delegate to the 2007 LCMS Convention in Houston, I have observed these divisions firsthand and have been dismayed by them. Keep up the good work!
Rev. Wayne W. Schwiesow
Pastor
Zion Lutheran Church
Gordonville, Mo.
St. Paul Lutheran Church
Chaffee, Mo.As an adult member of the LCMS for 40 years, I wish to thank the Journal for printing this piece which was in all respects consistent with the facts as I know them. Mollie Ziegler Hemmingway is a former member of the LCMS Board of Communication Services which oversees KFUO, among other media peculiar to our church. She is in a position to know what she is talking about.
In truth, the denomination had its most “unified” convention in years last summer because the opposition to the Rev. Gerald Kieschnick was simply kept from any meaningful participation. Mr. Kieschnick was re-elected by only 52% in spite of this control. “Missouri” is divided.
Helen Jensen
Austin, TexasThanks for printing this article. It is a clear and perceptive summary of the situation in our denomination. I agree with Ms. Hemingway in her analysis. It seems that this “Radio Silence” may be just a symptom of the synodical leadership’s plan to transition the LCMS into a “market-driven” church rather than a confessional one.
Greta Martin
Bristol, Wis.
Filed under: Updates
At first I was afraid that outsiders looking in on the issue would feel that President Kieschnick’s letter would be able to handily dismiss the issue.
This gives me hope that the real truth is going to come through en mass.
And I agree with ya Mollie; you almost feel bad for the guy.
And then you remember that there is forgiveness of sins if he asks us for it. Which makes you feel good for everybody.
Mollie:
Did President Kieschnick meet with you face-to-face, according to Matthew 18, before he wrote about you publicly, saying, “Its author presents a distorted account of the reason for the discontinuation of the “Issues, Etc.” program on the Synod’s KFUO-AM radio station.”?
No, he did not meet with me face-to-face or otherwise before defaming me. However, I don’t think you should have to meet publicly with someone before you take issue with what they say publicly.
Turns out he was very wrong, but I think public actions — such as canceling Issues, Etc., or writing about the canceling of Issues, Etc., may be responded to publicly.
Of course, *he* thinks otherwise, so I’m not sure what happened.
> And then you remember that
> there is forgiveness of sins if he
> asks us for it.
And even if he doesn’t, yes? Forgiving him does not mean giving in to him! You can fight him every inch of the way, but with a forgiving heart.
Otherwise, our common enemy wins.
Well, for him to be truly repentant and us giving him forgiveness would really be end of the fight. If he became repentant he would know that this decision was wrong and he would work to fix the problem.
Actually, I think I misunderstood what you said a bit. Why can’t we edit our comments?! *shakes fist*
Yes, we must do everything with forgiving hearts, not vindictive hearts.
It seems odd that our president would claim we are a unified synod. Here are two straightforward facts that refute such a claim. 1) For the last few years the synod has been sponsoring district wide convocations to discuss our differences. In the Northern Illinois District we have had two of these in the last few years. There have also been two synod wide convocations in the last few years for the same purpose (in Phoenix I believe) and 2) the President himself recently put out a series of Bible studies for the pastors to study in thier circuit meetings based on the issues that divide us (worship, fellowship, etc.), the intent being that through dialgue thier might come unity.
Out of curiosity, who would have authority to, and I cringe to use the word, excommunicate President Kieschnick? Have steps been taken, or is it the right thing to do in Christian discipline?
Didn’t the Missouri District President attempt to reason with “Mr Kieschnick” (I like WSJ!) once as leader of the District in which he is a member of a congregation?
And wasn’t he told he had no authority to do so?
His Pastor is not only a rubber stamp but a willing accomplice according to all reports.
Who else, then?
[...] About that letter to the editor, President K. [...]
Scott Gerken asked who would have the authority. I doubt that our “Sola Scriptura” denomination follows it, but Jesus ordered that you follow a stepwise approach (Matthew 18). First, talk to him privately, then with two witnesses, then to the church. If at any step he repents then you forgive him, otherwise at the end of the process treat him like a scribe or publican.
Otherwise, I’m sure there’s some mechanism to impeach a sitting president, without excomunnication.
I think it’s reasonable to presume that President Kieschnick knew the COP and BOD had already identified one of the issues as “Failure to recognize the severity of the division in our Synod” when he wrote the WSJ editor. It’s sad and disturbing to see a Synod being hurt while Mollie’s story is unnecessarily being discredited with denigrating remarks i.e. (She presents a “false and misleading picture..of the LCMS as a deeply divided church.”)
Stewart wrote: “. . . (Matthew 18). First, talk to him privately . . .”
As Mollie pointed out, a public sin does not require a private meeting. This is in our Large Catechism, as well as the Scriptures. However, it has been denied by our Synod in Convention (2004).
In the current synodical process, if I understand correctly (and I may not - it is a beastly, complicated affair), only a synod convention has the authority to remove a synod president. And guess who chairs and essentially controls the synod convention?
So the short answer is, “No, there is no practical way to remove a synod president, besides voting him out next election.”