When Emotions Replace Reason

The following article was originally written for the October issue of the Jesus First newsletter. In agreeing to do the article I made it clear that I did not agree with some of the positions associated with the Jesus First gang and that in the article I would clearly make that point. I was told by the pastor acting as editor of the newsletter that the Jesus First leadership does not reject a person because he does not agree with their "party line."

How wrong he was! After spending hours doing the article and submitting it, the core leadership of Jesus First refused to publish it unless I removed the sections that were critical of the so-called moderate wing of Synod. Hmmm. I always thought the moderate mentality prided itself in being open-minded.

In my opinion, any faction within our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that has political aspirations, whether the confessionalists or the Jesus First moderates, should be rejected simply because they have a desire for power and control. May the Lord of the Church establish leaders among us who are truly driven by the Gospel, not political ambition.

Pastor Don Matzat

+  +  +  +  +

It is difficult to fathom how, in the pursuit of truth, a church body that prides itself in the ministerial use of sound reason and intelligence, rather than subjective emotions and passion, could have allowed itself to get into the present predicament. Let's be honest, this Benke-issue has nothing to do with what is true and what is right. This is about control and politics. The mission, the ministry, the future, the image, and the Gospel-proclamation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod have been surrendered to the single all-consuming passionate question - who will win the Benke-battle? That which we have lovingly referred to as the "Purple Palace" is now the "Purple Fortress."

In the past, I viewed the moderate wing of the LCMS has being a threat to the future of the LCMS. Issues such as the Church Growth Movement, contemporary worship, CEO-clergy, the ordination of women, open communion and the like posed, and continue to pose, a threat to the Law/Gospel, confessional posture of our Synod. I strongly believe this is true, but, in this present struggle, the problem is most certainly neither Jerry Kieschnick nor "Jesus First." All one has to do is view the actions of both sides to discover who is really functioning to the detriment of the Synod. I am embarrassed to say that there was a time when I sided with these so-called right-wing confessionalists.

An outsider looking at this case would have to conclude that Atlantic District President David Benke did everything right. He sought and received permission from his supervisor to be involved in an "interfaith" civic event.

In granting that permission, President Gerald Kieschnick asked Benke a question: "Are any restrictions placed upon what you say?" Obviously, the President was referencing a resolution of Synod – 3-07a. Since there were no restrictions, he gave his blessing.

This is proper procedure. If the President of Synod misinterpreted the resolution, as some say he did, the voting body, the Synodical Convention, which approved the resolution in the first place and alone has the power to judge the manner in which the President fulfills his ecclesiastical duties, would make that determination. If after studying the issue, the delegates determined that Kieschnick improperly interpreted the resolution and was wrong to give Benke permission, so be it. Let the chips fall.

The charges filed against Benke should have never been allowed to stand. Since he acted with the full permission of his supervisor, the charges were a non-issue. The crux of the matter was the President's interpretation of an official synodical resolution.

But, the right-wing confessionalists were not willing to wait until 2004. They grasped the Yankee Stadium issue as an opportunity to "get" Benke and embarrass Kieschnick. Reason was replaced with emotions and common sense gave way to political passion.

In reviewing the whole process that has brought us to the present state of affairs I believe it is proper to conclude that the incident that replaced constitutional order with confusion and visited chaos upon the Synod was the recusal fiasco. This set the entire debacle into motion.

How anyone can conclude that the President of Synod's exercise of his office in supervising a District President presented a "conflict of interest" remains a mystery, especially since the Commission on Constitutional Matters has not directly addressed the question of what constitutes a "conflict of interest." Who determined that Kieschnick's exercise of office was a "conflict of interest?" Rather than being a "conflict of interest," it was a proper administration of the constitutional authority afforded the President of Synod that should have caused any charges against the accused District President to be set aside.

I have heard it suggested that this "recusal fiasco" was arranged so that the case could be placed into the hands of the First Vice-President, who, according to his supporters, is the next candidate for President. But alas, he was also recused by the Praesidium for publicly stating his opinions on the issue, opinions that were contrary to the position of the Synodical President. Since our Bylaws state that the President of Synod assigns the duties of the First-Vice-President, I wonder, did he get permission to do a public airing of this issue and state his personal opinions or was it merely rank insubordination?

Be that as it may, the case was now put into the hands of Second Vice- President Wallace Schulz. At the reconciliation meeting last May, Benke offered the simple defense – I sought the permission of my supervisor who referenced an official resolution of Synod. What else was there to say? It was amazing that neither Schulz nor the complainants manifested little if any respect for the resolutions of Synod. They acted as if we are not a constitutionally established Synod with legitimate lines of authority. Benke was actually accused of hiding behind Kieschnick's shirttails.

In his findings, Schulz totally ignored Benke's defense and what the Synod had to say. He rendered his own independent opinion and suspended Benke. Because he also typically ignored what his own supervisors had to say about his involvement in the case, Schulz was also suspended from the Lutheran Hour Ministries. In rendering his decision, Schulz passed judgment on the manner in which the President of Synod exercised his office, a power only reserved for Synod meeting in convention.

From what I understand, Benke sought to get Schulz recused from adjudicating the case. From the very beginning of their communication leading up to the reconciliation hearing, Schulz evidently stated, on numerous occasions, his opinion that Benke was guilty. I am sure that few realize this. The Praesidium refused Benke's request. At the reconciliation meeting, Schulz was questioned about his bias. He stated that everybody had an opinion regarding the Benke issue. How true this is. The President of Synod had an opinion and granted permission for Benke to participate. He is, after all, the only official given the responsibility of supervising the District Presidents. The First Vice-President had an opinion and publicly aired it. The Second Vice-President also had an opinion and, as a result of the recusal fiasco, overturned the opinion of the President, and suspended Benke. How is that foible possible?

In response, the President threatened to overturn the Schulz decision due to his failure to reference the position of Synod. This caused the Secretary of Synod, who is not supposed to have an opinion, to appeal to the CCM as to the propriety of the President's intention. The CCM, after dismissing the Secretary from the meeting, gave their opinion and affirmed the right of the President to review the Schulz decision.

Under the leadership of Chairman Robert Kuhn, Synod's Board of Directors now enters the fray and offers their opinion. They question the LLL's suspension of Schulz; beg all participants to stop giving opinions so the Dispute Resolution process can continue; and calls both the Board of Communications and the President of Synod on the carpet for their part in the publicity issue. I can understand the BOD exercising supervision over the BOC, but I can find nothing in my Synodical Handbook that gives the Board of Directors the authority to judge the manner in which the President of Synod exercises his office. Do these elected leaders of Synod happen to have a "flow chart" defining the manner in which the officers and boards of Synod interact?

When emotion and passion replace reason and common sense, bad things happen. On one level, planes are flown into buildings killing thousands. On another level, proper procedure is violated; Christian's slanderously attack each other; ministry is hindered; and the world blames the Gospel.

The people who caused this mess with their political shenanigans have the audacity to suggest that David Benke should, for the sake of the Gospel and the Church, admit that he did something wrong and apologize. This will not happen nor should it. Why should Benke get them off the hook? Does David Benke have the responsibility to also pass judgment on the President of Synod by saying he was given bad advice? The recusers created the mess. Let them clean it up. I guarantee this issue will be on the table at the National Convention in 2004.

In the meantime, every member of Synod, especially the Pastors, has the responsibility to study this case very, very carefully. Read everything. I was speaking with a pastor recently who had an opinion on the issue but was not even aware of the fact that Benke received the permission of the President of Synod to be involved at Yankee Stadium. If you do not have a Synodical Handbook, download one from the Synodical website. Study the sections that deal with the duties and powers of the Officers and Boards of Synod. Download the decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that are pertinent to this case. Compare the actions of the Praesidium, the Secretary and the Board of Directors with the Constitution and Bylaws.

The elected officials who are seeking to gain political advantage on the back of the 9/11 tragedy do not have the right to play fast and loose with the Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions of Synod in order to achieve their ends. They do not have the right to interfere with or usurp the authority of the President of Synod nor pass judgment on the manner in which he exercises his office. I probably would not have voted for Jerry Kieschnick for President, but I do deeply respect the Office of the President of Synod. Such respect is totally lacking among many of the other elected officials.

When 2004 arrives, be prepared to act. Prepare resolutions calling into question the behavior of those members of the Praesidium who usurped the authority of the President of Synod. In your circuit conclaves, make certain that any delegate chosen to represent you at the convention clearly understands the procedural issues in this case and is not merely operating on emotion. It is too bad that the Constitution and Bylaws do not allow for a recall of those elected officials. I guess we will have to wait until 2004.

Pastor Don Matzat
Zion Lutheran Church
Bridgeville, PA

Back to "It's OK to Pray"...The SPIRIT Page

Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links