I have a read a few people critical of my reporting information that can’t be directly linked to.
Believe you me, I would much rather link to the minutes of a meeting or quote people directly. But when every single action in Synod takes place behind closed doors, in executive session, it’s rather difficult.
When the Synodical President approved of the firing of Rev. Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwarz, when David Strand dismissed them without explanation, when the explanations offered have changed and morphed countless times, when none of the explanations add up — and then we are told, in essence, to “trust” the Synodical President and Council of Presidents in spite of all this?
Excuse me, but no. There is precisely no reason why any of the business regarding Issues, Etc. should be conducted behind closed doors. Note, for instance, this portion of President Kieschnick’s letter:
At the April 21, 2008, meeting of the Council of Presidents (COP) of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, financial details precipitating this decision were discussed in executive session by Mr. David Strand, Executive Director of the LCMS Board for Communication Services (BCS), with specific fiscal information provided by the Vice-President-Finance—Treasurer of the Synod, Dr. Thomas Kuchta.
But the Synodical President doesn’t say what Kuchta said. Did he say that Issues, Etc. was not responsible for the financial problems at KFUO? Did he say that he never advocated selling KFUO-AM — as David Strand told his board he did? Did he reveal that he was not notified of this decision with huge financial implications before it happened?
We don’t know for sure because the discussion was cloaked in secrecy.
But the way that President Kieschnick presents it, it seems as if Kuchta was totally fine with what went down. I don’t believe that is true.
Let’s stop hiding behind executive session. Let’s stop passing the buck. Let’s start giving some straight answers.
Like I said, these “shut up and go away” statements work wonders on pastors. But not the laypeople. They can threaten pastors effectively. But they can’t threaten us.
Here we stand. Lift the cloak of secrecy!
Filed under: Updates
Dare I suggest that it’s time to pass “sunshine” resolutions at the next district and synodical conventions?
>>Like I said, these “shut up and go away” statements work wonders on pastors. . . . They can threaten pastors effectively.<<
Not all pastors. Some of us will not be intimidated.
But your point remains. These guys cannot get at laypeople as easily.
What is really needed is for CONGREGATIONS to speak out and take action. That gets their attention.
Mollie,
They can certainly threaten pastors but we don’t have to give into the threats. Sadly, we often do, though, justifying it by saying we can just preach the Gospel in our own little parish & catechize the people there.
Which is fine to an extent but it only gets us so far. It’s dependent on a pastor being in that place forever. But when he’s gone & there are no longer any confessional replacements from the seminary but, at best, moderates, & at worst company men, who have more loyalty to the institution than to doctrine, what happens to that little parish then?
And what happens if a faithful pastor faces opposition within his parish? More often than not, he’ll find the district officials working hand in hand with the opposition or at best doing nothing to support faithful preaching & practice.
So, putting our heads in the sand or trying to fly under the radar isn’t going to work very well in the future. If the powers that be can do what they did to Todd & Jeff, then they can do it to any pastor for any reason at any time. Sure, a pastor’s parish may be upset & angry when their pastor is done away with, but as we know the current administration is very good at spinning the truth & waiting things out.
But I’m not going to be too hard on pastors who want to fly under the radar. To a certain extent, I’m one, too. Pastors have it hard enough out in the parish without all the crap from synod bearing down on them, too.
TLH #260
Perhaps we should just ask Kuchta what he said about Issues, Etc. in that meeting. He’s a big boy; he can speak for himself.
tom.kuchta@lcms.org
Re: Pastors – Every pastor must make a decision regarding the best stewardship of his time and energies as well as the impact his involvement in extra-congregational matters will have on his members and potential members. This includes the highly visible means of blogging, etc. I would not judge any pastor on the basis of how much noise he makes in public. He is called by God to be a shepherd of his congregation.
Re: executive session – While certainly procedurally proper, to call an executive session solely for the basis of keeping information from the public would not be the sort of transparency one expects from servants in the church.
Mollie,
They can only get at the pastors if the pastors let them intimidate them.
Like we said in the Navy, “What can they do? Take away my birthday?”
A pastor has to choose where he can stand. Some guys are outwardly tougher than others and can take more. Others fight the battle by praying and encouraging those on the point. We all, laypeople too, suffer these things together.
This was brought home to me during the Yankee Stadium debacle. Some of us stood up. Others held us up. Some stood at a distance and watched. Some ran away. That’s the way it always is . . .
Thanks for all your work. I’ve always enjoyed your writing and admired your courage.
Peace.
The situation that you are describing, the secret meetings etc., indicate to me that the LC-MS might be run by a Nazi cult. ‘Fuhrer befiehl, wir golgen!’ [Fuhrer command, we will follow!]
Norman Teigen
former LC-MS and now,
ELS layman
Whoops! Change ‘golgen’ to ‘folgen’.
What is really needed is for CONGREGATIONS to speak out and take action. That gets their attention.
Better yet, speak with your pocketbook! If your congregation gives a percentage to the district/synod, use the voters assembly to change that budget method – it’s the congregation’s right to determine how and how little it gives to district/synod. Don’t let PLI-style intimidation dissuade you.
Work with other like-minded members. To carry out corrective action use your congregation’s constitution and bylaws, and Robert’s Rules or Order; if you are not familiar with them – LEARN. Soldiers learn how to use their weapons before they go into battle.
Request your circuit’s elected convention delegates show up at a voters’ meeting to explain their votes at the last synodical convention.
These just scratch the surface of the many things laymen can do to put pressure on the synod do the job it really should be doing for Missouri Synod congregations.
And remember – the synod is not the church; it is a secular corporation created to help Lutheran congregations carry out their God-given responsibilities. The Missouri Synod is not an episcopy. The elected synodcrats can just as easily be unelected.
Congregations that still enjoy Confessional practice, Pastors etc like ours just don’t seem to get it. It was brought up in our adult Bible study week before last and very few understood the big picture. Many if not most, didn’t seem to think “it had anything to do with them”. Most of the laity have no idea what mechanism there is in place to get anything done (me included). I have written many letters via email to Synod officials and have goten form letters in replay. Mostly buck passing. Kieshnicks Exc. Sec’ said to pray for One Message” I’m guessing it would be a message from someone like Joel Osteen or that misguided Pastor of Jefferson who used his Easter message to “intertain the troops” and justify his controversial billboard campaign…which he admitted was a failure. I would like to commend the man on his “nice pajamas!” (Does that satisfy putting the best construction)? Would someone please tell us out here in the disinfrancised hinterland of the laity what we can to do to check this insanity. “The Devil” certainly made trouble but its not the laity for demanding answers and accountability.
I agree that it is the secrecy is the most disturbing aspect of this entire fiasco – or maybe what comes across as veiled threats against those who will not stop asking for straightforward, honest answers.
I can only think of three reasons for the secrecy:
1) Their stated reason for secrecy to maintain employment confidentiality is all there is to it. But that only makes sense if Todd and Jeff were dismissed for cause. The different reasons Synod officials have given for the cancellation have been various combinations of programmatic and business reasons, nothing related to Todd and Jeff’s individual performance. Todd was not the original host of the show; if he was fired for cause a new host could have been found to continue the show. So how is this a personnel issue? What is the best construction here – that they are trying to preserve Todd and Jeff’s reputations by not revealing why they deserved to be fired? Or adhering to the CIA’s approach of never confirming or denying rumors so that refusal to deny a rumor in the future cannot be taken as a confirmation of the future rumor?
2) Unwillingness to admit publicly to mistakes and incompetence in the management of KFUO and/or handling the cancellation of Issues Etc. I don’t expect Synod to be run with an eye on the bottom line, and or for them to necessarily have the shrewdest, most savvy media executives in the US. But from their public statements it appears that they think they should be such (are such?), and so maybe they are embarrassed to admit to failures in this regard. I would certainly and could easily forgive an honest admission of errors (though I wouldn’t call business mistakes ’sins’ so maybe I shouldn’t use forgiveness in this context), especially if accompanied with a plan to prevent recurrence. Am I sinning by saying to Synod official that your programmatic and business explanations don’t make sense to me, could you please explain further?
3) Synodical leadership IS hiding an agenda from laity that required cancellation of Issues etc. They do not believe that laity and many pastors will support this agenda, and thus they cannot be honest with us. What is the best construction on this? That they do in fact know what is best with us, and that they are bringing us slowly along in the most pastoral way possible – perhaps the way parish pastors have been known to introduce weekly communion into congregations that don’t understand why once a month is not sufficient? But my pastor and congregation supported Issues Etc., so does that mean my pastor is a false shepherd? I have not understood LCMS theology regarding ecclesiastical polity to function in this way.
Are there other possibilities? Since #1 doesn’t make sense to me, best construction leaves me with #2. But I’m afraid it’s really #3. The SP, COP, BCS have caused/are causing a lot of spiritual and emotional turmoil among pastors, congregations and laity by their actions and statements over the past 5 weeks or so. No matter to whom they want to assign fault (Mollie, media, bloggers, whatever), they were the ones who set this ball in motion. If the reason is not #3, they need to keep trying as they have not yet succeeded in persuading many of us that there is no hidden agenda. Instead, many of us have become more alarmed and more concerned about the direction of the Synod with each public statement issued from St. Louis.