Brandon Booth
MollieBREAKING: Political motives exposed
So apparently there is a “Radio Committee” meeting convening Monday in St. Louis. Some members of the LCMS Board of Directors and some members of the LCMS Board for Communication Services are meeting to discuss KFUO. This meeting was scheduled previous to the cancellation of Issues, Etc.
Apparently the members of this committee were furnished materials previous to the cancellation of Issues, Etc. that include a couple of pages listing anonymous negative comments about Issues, Etc.. These comments include the expressions “abrasive” and “hyper-orthodox” — as well as a comment about the program following its own “political agenda“.
What’s more — not one positive comment was furnished. Not one.
I can tell you from my days on the Board for Communication Services that listeners regularly sent in letters praising Issues, Etc. They would say the type of things you can read on the petition that has grown to over 6,600 names. We never received a single complaint. Why would this Radio Committee be furnished with multiple pages of anonymous negative comments about the program? Is this proof that the program was a victim of a political hit? Why do David Strand and President Kieschnick keep pumping up the so-called “financial” reasons for the termination of Issues, Etc., while hiding the fact that the Radio Committee was furnished with a completely distorted view of Issues, Etc.? What does this mean? Amazing!
Filed under: Updates
This is just getting downright insulting to anyone with common sense.
Kieschnick is abrasive, hypo-orthodox, and following his own political agenda.
–Anonymous
Gee. Wonder where and who the negative comments came from?
This getting to be more like Watergate all the time.
Guess I’m showing my age. :)
Anonymous #1 got it right.
“Some” of the members of the Board for Communication Service will be attending the meeting? Which “some”, why “some,” and if by choice, whose choice? (Their own personal scheduleing conflicts, or “invitation only?”)
“Anonymous” negative comments? Why anonymous? Can someone please see to it that the people at the meeting are individually provided with pages upon pages of 6000+ signatures in support of Issues, many including comments? People bold enough and honest enough to sign their names.
“What does this mean?” That’s a good Lutheran question……
Still waiting for an honest answer,
Still trusting that God is working good out of all this.
Ha! Forgot to put my name up above. Didn’t intend to be “Anonymous,” especially considering part of the content of my comment!
If this wasn’t political they would have allowed the show to continue long enough for the guys to say good-bye. It does not make sense that the guys didn’t get to say farewell if it was just for financial reasons.
Issues fan and Robin,
I agree with what you guys say.
“Anonymous!?” Since when were God’s people ever ANONYMOUS?
To quote you, Robin:
“What does this mean?” That’s a good Lutheran question……
Still waiting for an honest answer,
Still trusting that God is working good out of all this.”
Another good reason not to indulge anonymous pot shots in other areas of church life too.
Funny thing about orthodoxy. It is especially abrasive for the those who need a good scrubbing - and we all do. But, orthodoxy has an extreme comfort for those who are aware that their own righteousness is filth.
Amen Jon!
Very well stated, indeed!
This situation reminds me of Paul’s charge to Timothy.
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” Mark 4:1-4
I know Paul wasn’t speaking directly to anyone in our age, but if you applied his charge to this situation where do you think the chips fall.
Also, please give me a definition of “abrasive” and “hyper-orthodox” and show me how Scripture speaks to these words.
I’m sorry, I gave the wrong source of the verses in my last post. It should be 2 Timothy 4:2-4
Maybe they were comments from the Listener Comment Line? I always loved the one that Pr. Wilken would play that said, “y’all burn in hell.”
Of course something stinks at the marina if there were no positive comments, because we know the Listener Comment Line had those too.
“One of you will betray Me.”
Responses:
“Lord, is it I?” — the faithful
“Lord, is it I.E.?” — the anonymous
Hyper-orthodox? In contrast to what? Heretical? I’ll take the former please.
I’m not amazed anymore by anything coming out of the Purple Palace.
Have been wondering though. If the Board has been authorizing skimming from donations given to certain ministries or purposes to go to other purposes that the donors may not or plain don’t support - is this illegal? It is certainly unethical.
Is it not the height of deceit to present this committee with 2 pages containing nothing but negative comments? Can we find out who compiled those comments?
MIght be time to jump ship for me.
I think this is the last straw for me. I’ve been very disappointed with the LCMS for some years now.
My own congregation has fully embraced the happy-clappy “Shine, Jesus Shine” tripe, the church growth movement, and an erosion of confessional Lutheranism. It’s scandalous.
The WELS is looking pretty good right about now. They aren’t perfect, but they don’t have near the problems of the LCMS.
It’s clear ‘they’ have a story and they’re sticking to it.
They would not listen, they’re not listening still. Perhaps they never will….
Board members had to have been aware of the positive commments. There used to be a link to them on the I.E. website - whether it was “Feedback” or had another name, I don’t recall. But I remember reading through them and being surprised and pleased by the audience’s breadth, both geographical and denominational. Even before the petition, there was evidence that I.E. was touching people far beyond the LCMS.
This situation is getting unbelievable.
Please, I’m praying for a change up top. And in the middle. Wherever it needs to happen. The Purple Palace needs to be cleaned out.
If all the board members are seeing are negative comments, any intelligent board member might ask, were there no positive responses? Failure to ask this question is a lack of leadership; an agreement to be a rubber stamp for a steamrollering leadership.
Come to think of it, if, by this time, these board members are unaware of the support for IE, they are ill-informed to be board members.
I hope for the best. I pray they will see through the strongarm snow job being perpetrated on them and oppose it.
Just going to keep praying about it…
For the record, I have heard many negative comments about Issues Etc. Why? Because Issues Etc regularly aired the audio of some of them (along with audio of positive comments). They didn’t hide the fact that some found their program offensive.
There isn’t a program out there that someone won’t be offended by. But I agree, if in fact only negative comments were furnished to those involved with the cancellation decision, then something is very wrong.
I would really like to know if any other of the RSO’s to which I have donated directly have been, are, or are going to be “skimmed” by synod (at 40% yet!!!)
I’m certainly glad that my “tsunami” donations went directly overseas, to Lutheran missions but w/o synod’s help, since apparently what was given to synod was squirreled away to be ‘borrowed’ for a greater emergency…i.e., burnt.
3 words - Saint John’s Ellisville.
Pr. Dave has wanted to get rid of Issues Etc for a long time. He dubbed them hate speech in the afternoon. Todd’s orthodoxy was gumming up his plans for global domination (or whatever).
Jerry is mad at Todd for calling out the St. Luis Diocese and wrecking Jerry’s opportunity to kiss the pope’s butt when he comes to the area.
If you say something loudly enough for long enough, a bunch of people will begin to believe you. I do believe this is what the hope is.
I don’t see a pastor named Dave on the St. John Ellisville web site.
[...] BREAKING: Political motives exposed [...]
CONGRATULATIONS from
blogrank.info for the hot post
I think you mean Pr. Steve (not Dave) Hower of St. John-Ellisville.
DID PASTOR STEPHEN HOWER –(636) 394-4100– TELL DR. KIESCHNICK TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE “HATE SPEECH IN THE AFTERNOON” ON KFUO?
I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD LISTEN TO THE RADIO AT A REASONABLE VOLUME FROM THREE TO SIX…
… I DON’T SEE WHY I SHOULD HAVE TO TURN DOWN THE RADIO BECAUSE I ENJOY LISTENING AT A REASONABLE VOLUME FROM THREE TO SIX.
I found IE very abrasive and loved to listen to it to get my intellectual juices flowing! What does Cardinal Kieschnick think he’s gonna do by substituting a predictable little show of polite interviews? Make like everybody’s happy? make like this is heaven on earth?
As Daffy used to say, “What a maroon!”
I was told that KFUO doesn’t turn over any donations to Synod.
But I was told that KFUO did pay Synod for services that synod could provide cheaper than if KFUO paid consultants for the same thing. Computer support, like that.
I miss IE. I miss having Lutheran radio that made me think, even if my thoughts didn’t go in line with Pastor Wilken’s.
Refering to the synodocrats as the St. Luis Diocese and the president as Cardinal Kieschnick is not helpful. This sophomoric name calling is why the confessional side(s) of our beloved and not so united synod cant win elections or move an agenda forward. We would all be wise to stick to the arguments and issues (pun intended) at hand.
I don’t believe that to be the reason; it runs much deeper than that. In fact, I think in digging into the reasons for the cancellation of Issues, we are looking the reasons squarely in the face. However–I agree wholeheartedly that name calling, clever as it might be at times, only serves a selfish purpose and does not present us as the “intelligent listeners” that we purport Issues to have had. While we are angry, disappointed, wanting the truth, etc., etc., we would do well to remember the wise counsel that several web sites have offered to keep the 8th Commandment on our lips in this process. With that in mind, if we are going to refer to a person, the least we should do is make sure we have the name correct! Pastor Lovejoy, do you mean a Pastor Dave? Or did you have the name mixed up and mean Pastor Steve Hower? (See Charles Henrickson comment.) That is essential information to have correct. Please, could you clarify? Thank you.
I don’t think there’s any better example of grace in disagreement, and sheer manners, among us human beings than Todd Wilken himself.
Might be worthy of remembrance.
Having said that, I don’t necessarily think the things some are calling on others to forsake for the sake of the 8th commandment are really the breaches they’re made out to be. Breaches of ettiquette maybe; but not commandments.
But, pretty much, a person knows when he’s violated ettiquette as well as a commandment. And that he/she ought not.
Especially under the name Anonymous or with an alias.
“negative comments”
Notice that “orthodox” is considered a bad word in that comment. Like “dogma.”
Or translate it: “they were super-correctly-praising” [God].
Hmmm….
Exactly why newspapers don’t usually print unsigned/anonymous letters to the editor.
This type of stuff is so typical in the Christian faith, it is the rule not the exception. It is to bad two men and so many other lives got ripped up by the situation. But it will get worse and I can assure you, they will win. That has to happen.
Name calling aside, (and it needs to be more than aside, even absent this conversation), we need to stay the course put ourselves into positions to properly reeducating the laity, of which I am one, so that we can do the work that the laity did in the 70’s after the walkout. Talk to your friends; email your family; have a public forum in your circuit. Make sure that you continue speaking and arguing theologically. Do not expect to win by being one of them. The church will always be the church, but we would hope that the visible church would continue to walk together in scripture and the confessions, not in billboards and praise bands.
I apologize for not editing myself before I pressed the Submit Comment button.
On the side bar of this site, you state “While it is not our goal to bring Issues Etc. back to KFUO…please sign the petition”. What gives?
CONGRATULATIONS from
blogrank.info for the hot post
In response to Linda’s question above, I am not attempting to speak for Mollie or Brandon but am offering only our thoughts. While in many ways it would be good for Issues to continue on KFUO, there could be good reasons for it to be resurrected elsewhere (it would need a different name, of course). I offer here, in part, an idea my husband posted on the web site “LAYMEN WITH ISSUES, ETC.” He wrote: “I think that the organization which could sponsor a resurrected Issues, etc. with integrity and stability is the Luther Academy. This organization has been around long enough to prove its confessional integrity….We would be happy to support such an endeavor, especially if Rev. Wilken and Jeff Schwarz would be the host and producer. I want to emphasize that the program needs to be thoroughly Lutheran, as Issues proved to be. It needs to faithfully uphold the doctrine of the church as it is confessed in the Book of Concord.” One of many ideas. All the while, God knows the plans He has for us–and for this program.
Thank you Robin, I appreciate your prespective. One of my concerns has been that if Synod did back-up it would be only partially and that Issues Etc. would return, but not unfettered.
Just a quick note and excerpt for your consideration. I just read through and downloaded the BOD Minutes for Feb 08. I was not surprised to find this:
30. Joint BOD/COP Committee Report
Board of Directors members serving on the Joint BOD/COP Committee—Kermit Brashear, Betty Duda, and Roy Schmidt—provided a report of an initial conference call and the first formal meeting of the committee. Council of Presidents representatives on the committee are Kenneth Hennings (Texas), Dean Nadasdy (4th Vice-President), and Paul Sieveking (Iowa District West).
Betty Duda reported for the board representatives, spoke of the excitement generated by the first meeting of the committee, and recalled the kinds of questions that the committee will be asking of the constituency of the Synod in order to obtain input from the field:
•
What is causing the disharmony in the Synod?
•
What needs to change?
•
How are you affected by the disharmony?
•
What do you cherish about the LCMS?
•
How does the Synod get to where you want it to be?
•
What are the greatest struggles facing the Synod?
•
How does the Synod achieve concord?
•
What are the core values of the Synod?
•
What commitment have you made as a member of the Synod?
Clarifying that the questions have yet to be refined, she reported that interviews of a representative group of the Synod will be conducted to obtain responses to the committee’s questions, and suggestions of names of persons to be interviewed will be welcomed. She emphasized that the committee has just begun to do its work and intends to be very transparent in carrying out its responsibilities. Initial plans include invitations to leaders of the Synod to speak to the committee, a preliminary report from these conversations to serve as the basis for regional hearings, with the process working toward the next convention of the Synod.
Now wait a minute! Didn’t President K. say in his letter chastising Mollie Hemingway that the Synod is united and all is positive? Oh, well, another public lie on his part in order to save face!
And, is it not true that in the congregation “anonymous” complaints are dismissed as irrelevant and to be ignored when it comes to complaints? So, why are these being distributed at a meeting as though they are authoritative?
And the “disharmony” is not going to be solved by putting together another commitee or another task force. And it’s not a human relations problem that can be solved using the latest psychology. It is a doctrinal problem which can only be corrected by our submitting to the Word of our Lord.
Just for the record ‘hypo’ is the opposite of ‘hyper.’ I assume that is what the first poster on this thread meant.