Yesterday I linked to a job announcement in the Synod’s official newspaper The Reporter. The position David Strand is trying to fill reads almost word for word as the job description the Board for Communication Services had for Rev. Todd Wilken. The only thing left out is the term “staff Pastor.” (Rev. Wilken was KFUO’s staff pastor.) It’s odd that Strand would cancel the show and “eliminate the positions,” and then advertise to fill one of the “eliminated” positions.
How does this guy keep his job?
If you’re trying to convince a church body that you fired Rev. Todd Wilken for financial — and not political or theological — reasons, can’t you cover your tracks a little bit better than this?
Filed under: Updates
They make it like shooting fish in a barrell and still wonder why they are targets of frustration?
It’s not incompetence…it’s calculated, unmitigated, unethical gall.
Do I smell sulphur?
What I find especially strange about this job description is the absence of the specifications of “ordained pastor” under the list of essential qualifications since preaching on KFUO Sundays is involved.
Are they open to filling the position with someone other than an ordained male minister? Again, it just seems too odd that the qualification of being ordained is not on the essentials list…. ???
“Do I smell sulphur?”
You may want to get yourself a lightning rod.
Tim,
We already have a lightning rod – his name is Jerry.
After Pastor Todd was fired an individual at another blog wrote that Pastor Todd had a call from KFUO and that the firing was not done correctly.
Someone wrote to defend the firing by stating that Pastor Todd was an at will employee.
Now it is stated that according to the job description, Pastor Todd was ’staff pastor’, was required to be ordained and to preach. I’m so comfuzed.
How does this mesh with what they said in defending the firing of Pastor Todd — that he was an at will employee.
Mark:
Nothing they say meshes with anything.
This is downright lying at it’s worst. And it’s really starting to grind my gears.
I almost cried yesterday when I read about Reverend May being brought back home because our Synod supposedly can’t afford to keep him in his field.
I had two good friends fired from staff positions at Concordia Theological Seminary using the same methods, so I can vouch for the fact that stealth, refusal to give reasons (other than financial), and vengeful pastoral care (now that we’ve fired you, lets pray for your welfare together) are Synod-wide HR policies. I wouldn’t have expected it there.
One of my friends, given financial reasons as the reason for her termination, informed them that if her position were filled in the next six months, they would be sued. She had seen them work before and was ready.
The only thing that I can see here is that they cut costs by stating that the person would be doing his own producing (really? monitoring calls and everything? I find that hard to believe). So it really does give Pastor Wilken ammunition for wrongful firing, should he choose to pursue that.
Mollie, this is journalism at its best. Thank you for continuing to report and analyze.
It’s incredible to me that anyone could be defending the synodocrats’ actions, as mark of brighton reported. I presume those who defend are among the non-thinking Christians. They are the ones that leaders of happy-clappy churchbodies love so well.
It would be a very interesting exercise for Pr. Wilken to send in his resume! It appears he meets and exceeds all the listed qualifications.
Or have his lawyer send it in for him…
Unfortunately, if Pastor Wilken sues, that will be used as a club at the next convention.
Karl Hess, on May 8th, 2008 at Said:
“Unfortunately, if Pastor Wilken sues, that will be used as a club at the next convention”
No doubt. But the shield against the club would be the whole wrongful dismissal and heap of lies leading up to the lawsuit.
This gets more and more fascinating. The first thing that stikes me is, the Board already knows who will apply, or at least who will NOT, namely, any friend or supporter of Pr. Wilken and Mr. Schwartz. In other words, Confessionals. They pretty much are not even going to apply.
The second thing I thought about was that the new employee will want assurances that he or she will not meet a similar fate, and will want to know upon what *basis* such assurances can be given. That’s to say, he or she will have to be told the truth. How interesting!
But then when I read some of the other comments, I realized there most likely is an internal candidate already chosen, who understands the truth, perhaps without having to be told explicitly. Perhaps some of you are in a position to take an educated guess who that might be? Seems the stated qualifications narrow the possibilities considerably…
The fourth thing that interests me so much is, once the new show begins to air, the difference between it and IE will make everything clear beyond any doubt, if there still is any. That’s when all the cards will be laid on the table. Shouldn’t be too long now.
Anastasia, et. al.,
I heard that the candidate has already been chosen and he is a liberal pastor with whom I served on the Board for Communication Services. I’ll post details on that, too.
So, can this be rightly considered “incompetence”, or is it in reality a change in theological direction at the station?
Oh to be told the truth!!!! My respect level for anyone is power is now at a -10 on a scale of 1 – 100. I already told JK I was ashamed to know him. Now I am downright appalled!! And don’t even get me started on Strand. What a mess.
Here’s a pattern that I’m beginning to see.
(1) The LCMS has about 6000 congregations. The Anti-Confessional agenda appears to be trying to keep faithful pastors out of many pulpits; and to be replacing them with “lay” ministers.
(2) The Rev May thread appears to unveil the replacement of ordained missionaries with “lay” missionaries. I noticed that the latest LCMS World Missions Harvest issues list the months’ birthday celebrations without the title of Reverend anywhere even when at least one of the listed names is. The front page picture shows some random people in casual clothes hugging each other. You seldom see anyone getting baptized anymore.
(3) Year after year now, there are not enough calls to pick up the graduating seminarians.
(4) And now this bologna for the KFUO pastor position without ordination being a qualification.
HM…
When the seminaries pump out guys who’ve pledged themselves to the Scriptures and to the Confessions, it’s no wonder the agenda doesn’t want them. The agenda would rather hire lay people, of the useless variety, who are both ignorant and indifferent both to Scriptures and to heresies alike. The ordained who are with the agenda pretend to be bureaucrats and are against any notion of accountability.
CGM talks about “ministries” like Stephen, Timothy, etc.
What it really has here is a Judas “ministry.”
Maybe he has a friend who needs a job? Might be interesting to examine Strand and his wife’s employment history with the LCMS.
Mrs241 you seem to know the SP personally. Does he have ANY remorse over what he is doing to the LCMS? Does he understand the personal anguish he’s caused so many people? I always wondered if he has a conscience.
At this point, it is clear as day that Synodical Bureaucrats are lying to our faces. At what point do we confront them with their sin that they may repent and turn from their sinful ways? Let’s say, just for a moment, that there is nothing sinful about going squishy Church Growth non-denominational etc etc. They are being not just secretive, but they are telling lies which is a sin any day of the week.
Do President Kieschnick and Director Strand need some pastoral care and attention because of their sin and unrepentance?
Our brothers are sinning! What shall we do?
Yes, they need pastoral care and admonition. But good luck talking to either of them to give it to them.
I’ve been emailing Mr. Strand, Pres. Quicheneck, and the wayward members of the BCS for over a month, and the only response I ever got was a preprogrammed “I already answered all your questions in the March 27 letter” from Mr. Strand, and a regurgitation of our Synod’s “vision statement” from Quicheneck’s assistant.
Oh, and the occasional “Due to high message volume, don’t expect Pres. Quicheneck to give a crap about your email.”
We have long passed the stage of public admonition as dictated by Matthew 18. We’re well into the stage of treating them like tax collectors and prostitutes. Which is exactly what they are: Pres. Quicheneck is the former, and Mr. Strand and the BCS are the latter.
BTW, I have a strong suspicion that Mr. Stranded, Pres. Quicheneck, and the wayward BCS members all have their emails set to filter out anything related to KFUO. I’d suggest sending paper letters. The post office doesn’t automatically delete those for you.
Apparently something happened with that job position, or someone realized that it had been noticed. The link now redirects to the LCMS home page, and there is no trace of the posting in the archives.
I had not realized how many issues the Synod had until March. It is sad to see the behavior of the leadership.
“It is sad to see the behavior of the leadership.
Pass that thought on to the responsible convention delegate(s) of your choice (2007 Proceedings, pp. 7-14).
Bryan, You are right – I looked at the link also and even searched the Reporter and it is as if it never existed. Isn’t that interesting…
Did anyone save a copy of that?
Floyd, you commented:
“We have long passed the stage of public admonition as dictated by Matthew 18. We’re well into the stage of treating them like tax collectors and prostitutes. Which is exactly what they are: Pres. Quicheneck is the former, and Mr. Strand and the BCS are the latter.”
First, let me present this question to all reading: How did Jesus treat tax collectors and prostitutes?
Second, what does this passage (from Philippians 2) mean in light of the answer to the previous question?
“Imitating Christ’s Humility:
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
If the time has come to treat anyone like a tax collector or a prostitute, then we, as confessing Lutherans AND Christians, are commanded to love as Jesus loved: to accept the sinful, to welcome the incorrect, and to know that God is our judge, instead of each of us being one another’s judge. And what a relief that is! Glory be to God that we do not have the responsibility OR the right to condemn a brother or sister.
We may disagree, and we may discern that indeed, decisions and statements made my some people in leadership have been in error, but we have no right to be ashamed of, tear down, or belittle ANYONE. Not even President Kieschnick or Mr. Strand.
Michelle,
The text is posted on the Rasbury’s Res blog comment section.
http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-does-this-meanagain.html
know that God is our judge, instead of each of us being one another’s judge. … And what a relief that is! Glory be to God that we do not have the responsibility OR the right to condemn a brother or sister.”
Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
1 Corinthians 5:12
I would commend the poster for their intention, but it doesn’t match up with what Scriptures say. We are to evaluate what people in the Body of Christ do in light of what Scriptures say, and where they are erring – correcting them in love out of consideration for their eternal well being.
And where that correction is not accepted, then the Scripture requires more extreme measures to be taken, including expulsion from the church body until such time as they repent.
However, one needs to take care how one proceeds as “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” is still out there, as well as the various command throughout Scripture against the hypocrisy of applying to others a standard you’re not willing to live up to yourself.
I’ll leave with this quote:
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires
.
James 1:19 The Holy Bible : English standard version.
There is an inherent conflict in having a pastor in a divine call while also being an ‘at will’ employee. A pastor answers to God, an at will employee answers to his boss. If you are the boss and you tell the at will employee to jump, the answer better be ‘how high, sir’? But if it the employee is also called, when you tell him to jump, he may respond, “I’m sorry, I believe that to jump would violate my ordination vows. The best I can do for you is to hop.” If you have respect for a divine call, you can do little more than grit your teeth and fume.
So when the position finally does become open, you clearly do not want the position to be one requiring a divine call if this is not absolutely necessary. However, if eligibility for a divine call is not listed as a required for the position, you may be flooded resumes from otherwise qualified candidates. But if in fact, for whatever reason, perhaps as trivial as to be able to call him Reverend on the air, you actually *do* want someone eligible for a divine call, just not extend one, this flood of resumes will bog down the hiring process, possibly even open things up to a discrimination lawsuit. However, if you add preaching to the job description, that will eliminate the vast majority of potential resumes from consideration. Now your pool is narrowed to people eligible to preach in the LCMS yet willing to work as an at will employee without a divine call. This would have to be a very small pool. Now add one more filter, that of extensive experience in Synod ministries, and the pool may now be the one or two people you already have in mind. And the only people willing to take such a position would be those who buy in to your expectations for the position – or at the very least be willing to jump whenever told to do so. And never again will you have to moan “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
(It is important to note that this deliberate narrowing of the pool isn’t nefarious, it is how anyone working in a large organization goes about hiring an employee who reports to them (e.g. me). Call it the ‘old boy network’ if you will, but as long as you are trying to what you believe is best for the organization, it is simply due diligence to be sure you manage the process so that you wind up with the employee you think will best meet the goals you have for the position. There’s no reason to replace the former employee with someone just like him if you want something different from the position.)
Agreed, Tim. My intention, as you mentioned, was to help people in thinking about their name-calling and petty insults. Changing Mr. Strand’s and President Kieschnick’s names, and calling them prostitutes and tax collectors literally rather than figuratively (as in the case of the Scripture cited), is blatantly against God’s commands for His followers.
In the case of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, as you rightly quoted, instructs the Corinthians to expel the immoral from within their church bodies, as in the case of a man sleeping with his stepmother. Although Paul uses the word “judge” in the passage, my simple connotation with the word is “condemn” rather than “discern the action.” Call it human error or personal opinion, but in full view of my sins, I am nowhere near comfortable with judging anyone. I will judge their actions, but never their person. I have no claim, no right, and no way within me to do that. Thus, I leave with this comment: We ought to hold our pastors, presidents, etc to a higher standard, but in no way does holding them to a higher standard mean we have any right to belittle them. This is unacceptable and unconscionable.
While I ” hear” what you’re saying Ben, I don’t think we can take “Tax collectors and sinners” in the manner in which you described. While Jesus did what you described and eat with such people, at least those folks were honest about their condition.
However, such people in Jewish society were an outcast group, and that’s the only interpretation I can see applying in cases dealing with an unrepentant sinner.
On the name-calling, agreed 100%. People resorting to such tactics are shooting themselves in the foot.
Correction
“in cases dealing with an unrepentant sinner.” in the church.
In that case, I stand corrected. I will no longer refer to Mr. Stranded and Pres. Quicheneck by those names.
However, I do not retract what I said about the abominable way they have been treating our Synod, or about the way they have abused their offices for their own gain. In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul exhorts the church to expel those who are blatantly unrepentant, and that’s exactly what I think should happen to those who abuse their offices within our Synod. Remember Martin Stephan?
They took the listing down!
HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Perhaps ‘prostitutes and tax collectors’ was a bit over the top. How do you think ‘brood of vipers’ or ‘whitewashed tombs’ might apply?
“However, I do not retract what I said about the abominable way they have been treating our Synod, or about the way they have abused their offices for their own gain.”
I’m curious – what personal gain are they getting from these actions?
As for “whitewashed tombs” – that would be a reference to hypocrisy, and I’m aware of something either of them has done that would warrant that label.
“-what personal gain are they getting from these actions?”
How about consolidation of power for starters.
As for hypocrisy, how’s this: constantly quoting the 8th Commandment to attempt to silence their critics, but at the same time, twisting the information available in attempt to mislead us. We already know that Mr. Strand is guilty of that (either that, or he doesn’t have a clue). Or claiming they’ve answered all our questions, when in reality, all they’ve done is regurgitate the same old spin without actually answering any of the specific questions regarding the facts. Heck, even the fact that President Kieschnick seems more fluent in corpspeak than in clergyspeak should be telling.
Floyd,
Let’s try to be careful and not give prostitutes and tax-collectors bad names by associating them with particular synodical officials.
I happen to think that [repentant] prostitutes and tax-collectors were those who were dear to our Lord because they knew they needed His mercy, forgiveness, life and salvation. In that sense, I am much more like those prostitutes and tax-collectors than Dr. Kieschnick is ever likely to be. And I think that the prostitutes and tax-collectors with whom Jesus ate might be offended that you lumped them into the company of synodocratic corporocraptacular buffoons.
I’m not necessarily opposed to name-calling as was clearly done by apostles, prophets, and our Lord Himself. And I’ve taken a lesson or two from Dr. Martin Luther. But let’s get it right.
I had asked The General to post this pic on his blog.
http://i31.tinypic.com/30jjkti.jpg
Jesus is capable of name-calling in righteous anger. I don’t think that anyone else is quite entitled (sinless) enough to call anyone a name. That includes Martin Luther, no matter how much all of you might think he was sinless, too.
Floyd. Really?
I don’t recall anyone claiming Luther was sinless. But I do also remember John the Baptist and his “brood of vipers”.
Who said John the Baptist was sinless, either?
No one did. Nevertheless, his calling them “brood of vipers” is part and parcel of his prophetic ministry. My point is, if John the Baptist can use colorful metaphor to make his point regarding the wayward religious leaders of his day, then I see nothing wrong with us doing the same today.