Brandon Booth
MollieOfficial notices
The following two letters relating to the situation with Dr. Noland are of interest:
It is with regret that I confirm that Dr. Martin Noland has resigned as Executive Director of the Concordia Historical Institute effective May 9th, 2008. Dr. Noland has expressed to me in the past that he has missed the parish ministry and has a desire to return.
Dr. Noland is as excellent Church Historian and has been a great asset to CHI as we fulfill our responsibilities to collect and preserve articles of historical value and records of officers and entities of the Synod.
In the past year we have nearly doubled the storage capacity of the valuable materials. We have also moved forward with an excellent museum to be located in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod headquarters. Construction is under way.
Our prayers are with Martin and Karla that the Lord will bless him with a call to serve a parish or in another way to serve as a Church Historian.
Larry Lumpe, Chairman
Concordia Historical Institute
And then this note:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
This weekend I received word from the Synod President’s representative to the CHI Board that Rev. Martin Noland of Concordia Historical Institute, desiring to return to parish ministry, resigned his position as Executive Director. I spoke this morning with Mr. Larry Lumpe, Chairman of the CHI board, who confirmed this information and concurred with my suggestion that I share this brief notice with Synod leaders.
Unless and until we receive further notice from CHI, it would be neither necessary nor appropriate for anything else to be said. We pray for Pastor Noland and his family in the days ahead as they await the Lord’s leading, guiding and directing in their lives.
Blessings in Christ to you all!
Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Whatever else may be said about this situation, the first sentence of Dr. Kieschnick’s letter is in error.
Filed under: Updates
Exactly who are the siblings “Brother” Gerald’s telling to hush up? I’m guessing it’s the brothers and sisters who are employed (called) at (his) will, because there’s no way he can be talking to me!
Which reminds me, I promised to listen to Giggles, Etc., promos & report who was going to be on as guests. Life has intervened and I haven’t listened to radio in quite a while, although I did hear a promo for Steve Siegel.
Literally, a promo. The lady voicing it reads a missive from a listener who says it’s so enjoyable to listen to Steve Siegel on the Afternoon Show. In the old days, the promos for IE used to be about the issues, not the personalities. Or at least, so I remember.
It recalled to me the recnet comment I overheard by a staffer of LHM. “yes, we thought about picking up ‘Issues, Etc.,’ but it’s too controversial.”
Back in the day, IE was called “Lutheran.” Now, LHM calls it “controversial.” And Larry Lumpe of CHI is also Larry Lumpe of LHM.
Well, no surprises there. I’ll miss “brother” Marty Nolan.
What is really behind the required resignation of Dr. Noland?
“Desiring to return to parish ministry”? Is Dr. Kieschnick saying that Dr. Noland resigned of his own initiative to take a Call into the parish?
Where is this Call? What parish called him? Did Dr. Noland resign HOPING for a Call into a parish –any parish?
Lumpe’s original letter announcing Dr. Noland’s resignation was vague, and insinuated a reason for Dr. Noland’s resignation without actually asserting a real reason.
Has Dr. Kieschnick “taken it up a notch” by materially asserting that Dr. Noland actually resigned of his own initiative to seek a Call to a congregation?
Let’s see something from Dr. Noland. Papers have been signed. Where does Dr. Noland say he is resigning because of a desire to return to the parish?
Why do we only get the synodicrat’s version of the story on these things?
Is this a Lumpe/Kieschnick cover-up? I suspect so.
The fact that Gerry would issue a letter like this only days after Noland’s firing shows that the stooges on the fourth floor have stepped in it again, and are trying desperately to wipe it off before anyone notices the smell.
This is corporate incompetence at its height.
Larry’s first sentence is incongruent with his last sentence.
If, according to Jer, the Nolands “await the Lord’s leading, guiding and directing in their lives”, then does that mean that Rev. Noland’s “resignation” without having a call was part of the Lord’s leading, guiding and directing?
Gerry is an Enthusiast.
Quote: “Whatever else may be said about this situation, the first sentence of Dr. Kieschnick’s letter is in error.”
It was the cover-up that felled Nixon.
Note the irony of the PLI “run the church like a business” approach. They use it in everything except in the church’s business matters…then they run it like banana republic.
Well, I’m confused. It was mentioned earlier that he would have been fired if he would not have resigned. However, both of these letters seem to indicate the opposite - that he simply wanted to return to a parish and would never have been fired.
Could it still be true that he would have been fired?
If so, these letters seem like more obfuscation.
Is there a gag order tied to this resignation?
Well, I’m confused. It was mentioned earlier that he would have been fired if he would not have resigned. However, both of these letters seem to indicate the opposite - that he simply wanted to return to a parish and would never have been fired.
Could it still be true that he would have been fired?
If so, these letters seem like more obfuscation.
Is there a gag order tied to this resignation?
At some point in time, I think we will need to come to grips with the fact that we are dealing with a dishonest and corrupt system of synod governance that needs to be torn down.
It seems to me that the actions against and misinformation about Issues Etc., Jeff Schwarz, Pastor Wilken, Pastor May, and Pastor Noland are the tip of the iceberg of the rotten fruit being produced by a rotten tree. The tree needs to be axed at the root.
I am now forced to hang my head in shame. I go to the same church where Strand and Lumpe attend, although I have to say I haven’t seen Strand since March 18. I cannot believe this is happening in my congregation which appears to be so solid. I don’t know where all this is leading but I know that no one in leadership at my church is willing to talk. I will stand up for my congregation though because we have many professors as members and they are incredibly devoted to the Lutheran confessions and creeds. I have been given thumbs up by most of them when I speak boldly of what has happened with IE. I don’t care a whit about the LCMS continuing in its current downward spiral but I do care about all of those who are struggling to turn the tide. God help us all.
Time for a change, don’t you think?
Change starts NOW.
http://harrisonforpresident.org/
Click “endorsements”
Well do you remember what we did a month ago today? Many of us carried signs WHY ?. And I just told someone at the lavender vatican that today. And they said good for you. I said I was Proud of it and I’d do it again. Sure miss Todd and Jeff. One thing is for sure I will publicize it in my own way and fashion. Post cards, e-mail, phone calls and even long distance calls and oh yes …talk about it and talk it up. Do hope they come out with bumper stickers ….now what color?
Sure got to meet some mighty fine people in line and walking!
I cannot respond to the issues you are expressing about your denominational leadership, but I have watched and admired the scholarship of Martin Noland for quite awhile. I see Noland as a loyal, honest, and compassionate man of God. My bias toward him is that he is a historian. I urge all of you, to not prematurely judge this situation until you do some research into a program Noland was responsible for south of St. Louis (a part of CHI.) Martin did not commit the alleged mismanagement at this site, but he is POSSIBLY the shepherd that is being held responsible for the sins of his sheep there. Sorry this is a bit cryptic, but premature analysis of a situation before you look outside of the mother “institution” for possible answers, or at least contributing factors–is probably not prudent. Do some research into other CHI programs–then make up your minds–you seem like sharp people to me. Regardless, Noland will always be someone that I respect, and I will be watching this situation, while praying for him and his family. Thank you for this opportunity.
Dear Scholarly Supporter,
I believe that Martin Noland is a beloved and well-respected pastor here on this site and I believe that all of our critical comments are aimed at those who caused his resignation. Mine are directed at the top echelon of the synod hierarchy outside of CHI.
I have not heard that Pastor Noland was accused of mismanagement. Is that what the higher echelon accused him of in order to force a resignation? If that is the case, I would suspect foul play against Pastor Noland and doubt it’s veracity. I hope you can give us more information on this? Thanks.
Hey Scholarly Supporter,
What in the world are you talking about in such a cryptic manner? Dr. Noland resigned and was not terminated. There is not a shred of evidence that members of “Jesus First” were out to “get him.” Of course, it is possible that he may have felt that way and so resigned out of fear. If so, he was the sad victim of his own irrational fears. The point is, that there is no clear evidence to indicate that members of JF were out to get him. Since the last convention, Martin Noland kept his hands clean of any controversy that would have triggered a termination from the likes of “Jesus First.”
The Synod President’s representative, via the LCMS President, claims that Martin Noland resigned because he desired to return to parish ministry. On the other hand, Larry Lumpe claims that Martin Noland expressed to him in the past that he has missed the parish ministry and had a desire to return. Others say he resigned because of financial crisis. Perhaps it was a combination of all three factors, with a bit of fear from “Jesus First” thrown in. Who knows?
What we need to do now is pray for Dr. Noland and hope that his gifts and talents can be used in the best possible way in the Kingdom of God. God will work this situation for good.
John:
I have spoken directly to Dr. Noland regarding this. His board asked him to resign. His contract required him to comply.
He most definitely did NOT resign because he desired to return to the parish. He may desire to do so, but that was NOT the reason he resigned. Again, he resigned because his board asked him to do so.
Please refrain from repeating your own speculation and the equally speculative spin of the synodicrats as though it were the truth.
If you truly care about Dr. Noland’s well being as you say, you will call him and get the truth, rather than trying to distract others with your speculations.
Thomas,
I think that is great that you talked to Martin Noland directly. My point is that there has been much speculation that has been not been very kind to the Synod. If what you say is true - and I have no reason to doubt your claim - than the Board still must have felt that he needed to resign for a reason. Are you aware of the reason? Did Martin Noland tell you what the reason was? If Martin Noland was employed “at will,” than we may never know the real reason. My concern is that the sinful carnal flesh can tend to put the worst construction on this event - e.g. that the real reason was the members “Jesus First” was out to get him.
We should pray now that Martin Noland gets a call into a new ministry that uses his gifts and talents for the glory of God. We should also pray for his well being, as well as his family.
John,
You are hysterical! I rarely get to read such inane logic! Thanks for the laughs!
John, please return the stapler.
I know you want a stapler of your very own, but that’s not it.
And please stop humming to yourself.
It’s annoying.
John,
You’re missing the point.
Lumpe insinuated, and Kieschnick outright claimed that Noland resigned out of a desire to return to the parish. This is untrue.
Kieshcnick wrote: “Rev. Martin Noland of Concordia Historical Institute, desiring to return to parish ministry, resigned his position.”
That is a lie.
Whatever the reason for the board had for asking Noland to resign, it was NOT because of Dr. Noland’s desire to return to the parish.
The chairman of the CHI board and the President of synod have both promoted a false story regarding Noland’s resignation. Lumpe has given a false impression, and Kieschnick has outright lied.
That is the point. That is the only point.
The only question that remains is: Why?
When you “resign to return to the Parish Ministry” you have that Call in hand first and are ready to accept.
When you get bounced, you don’t.
Lies are getting to be a habit at the top.
Maybe I’m just noticing more now that they are coming so thick and fast?
Perhaps we should get word from Noland himself, or from a source who can confirm that this resignation was the initiative of the CHI board. I’d much rather have a source I can point to and say, “There’s how we know!”
This issue of the CHI Footnotes has several photos of the CHI staff, excluding Dr. N, but he’s still listed at Footnotes editor. Oversight, i guess.
Waiting for the next pink slip to drop.
Logic?
What logic?
A reliable rumor has it that Rev Dr Martin Noland’s father has an email, regarding this employment situation, that will be published in the upcoming issue of Christian News.
With Rev Dr Noland having resigned, I don’t believe that he is really at liberty to speak much. Perhaps the other option offered to him was to lose eligibility for any call list?
Lord Kieschnick should know that such tactics, to manage certain employees out, are not very Christian at all.
I can confirm that reliable rumor. It was published. His father told me that today and a little while later it was in our mail. His email is in there along with most of the comments here on this post and some commentary by the editor himself.