 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
An Exchange of Letters with William Weinrich: The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Office of the Fifth Vice President 29 October 2002 Gerald B. Kieschnick, President Dear President Kieschnick, I want to thank you for the opportunity of serving as The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod liaison to the International Lutheran Laymen's League. In a recent communication to me, Mr. Rodger Hebermehl, Executive Director, informed me that you had renewed your appointment of me to that position. From the outset I was pleased to receive this appointment. It would allow me to learn of a premier organization closely associated with our Synod. And, indeed, during the past year I thoroughly enjoyed attending the meetings of the Board of Governors and getting to know some truly fine Christian people. I will always have fine memories of those occasions. However, events over the past few months have required that I review my participation as the synodical liaison to the Int'l LLL. Specifically I refer to both the manner and the result of the League's treatment of Dr. Wallace Schulz, who for twenty-five years served Lutheran Hour Ministries in the capacity of Associate Speaker of the Lutheran Hour, and who is also Second Vice-President of the LCMS. It was as Second Vice-President that early this year the Praesidium, of which I also am a member, assigned to Dr. Schulz the serious task of determining the validity of certain charges brought against President David Benke, Atlantic District. It was, of course, evident to us all that this particular case was theologically significant, but also politically charged. Nonetheless, according to acknowledged process, the case came to the Praesidium for determination. It is common knowledge that the Praesidium, after difficult discussion, determined for various reasons that both you, President of the LCMS, and Daniel Preus, First Vice-President, ought to be recused. By Handbook procedure, the task was then assigned to the Second Vice-President, Dr. Wallace Schulz, whom the members of the Praesidium found free of cause for recusal. To be sure, rather early on executives of the LLL voiced concern over the effect which Dr. Schulz's involvement might have on the LLL. In a letter to Dr. Schulz, dated February 19, 2002, Mr. Rodger Hebermehl (writing for the Executive Committee) indicated concern about the "potential impact" of Dr. Schulz's involvement in the case. In that same letter, Mr. Hebermehl requested that Dr. Schulz "prayerfully consider" recusing himself. However, again in that same letter Mr. Hebermehl wrote: "However, we do want to add that should the Lord lead you otherwise, we will support you." As I believe you are aware, Dr. Schulz responded to this letter by indicating that he had not assumed the Benke case on his own, but had been given that task by the Praesidium of the Synod. It was not, therefore, for him to recuse himself, since as an elected officer of the Synod, he had assumed certain obligations and responsibilities. Mr. Hebermehl, Schulz indicated, should address the Praesidium directly with his request. In a letter addressed to you, dated April 3, 2002, Mr. Hebermehl (writing for the Executive Committee) did formally appeal to the Praesidium "to consider handling this matter differently and recuse Dr. Schulz from adjudicating the issue." Mr. Hebermehl further requested that "printed material clearly state that Dr. Schulz' role was assigned solely by the Praesidium in the issue regarding Dr. Benke and has nothing to do with Dr. Schulz' position with the Int'l Lutheran Laymen's League." At its April 11, 2002, meeting, the Praesidium considered this formal request reaffirmed by Mr. Hebermehl that the Praesidium recuse Schulz. After discussion, the Praesidium reaffirmed by majority vote its decision to assign the Benke matter to Dr. Schulz. In the Praesidium's response it explicitly stated that this reaffirmation was made "since this involves a matter assigned to him by representatives of the church at large, and certainly not by Lutheran Hour Ministries." Referring to Mr. Hebermehl's February 19, 2002, letter to Dr. Schulz, the Praesidium added, "In accord with your earlier letter to Pr. Schulz, we are confident that Lutheran Hour Ministries will continue to pray for Pr. Schulz in this important role and support him in every way possible." Finally, as Mr. Hebermehl requested, the Praesidium further promised that "we will make appropriate note, wherever necessary, the he [Dr. Schulz] is functioning solely as a Synodical officer, and not as an employee of Lutheran Hour Ministries." In the discussion on April 11 concerning the request made to the Praesidium by Mr.Hebermehl, I made the argument that everyone on the Praesidium was in some way also associated with another entity. However, it was reasonably to be assumed that such other associations had implicitly granted permission to their member to carry out the duties of the Praesidium when it allowed that member to stand for election to the Praesidium of the LCMS. In the case of the Int'l LLL, it had for some time allowed the speakers of the Lutheran Hour to be members of Praesidium, at one time allowing both of the speakers of the Lutheran Hour to be members of the Praesidium at the same time! Indeed, I argued, it was probably the public visibility of the Lutheran Hour speakers that enabled them to be such strong candidates for the office of synodical vice-president. The League apparently did not mind when its speakers received approval from the synodical membership and the broader public. It was simply not proper, I further argued, that the Int'l LLL request the Praesidium to recuse Dr. Schulz when now he must determine a controverted case. The League had allowed him to stand for election in the first place, and the permission to stand for election entailed, necessarily, their equal permission to Dr. Schulz to perform whatever duties he might receive pursuant to his office as a synodical vice-president. This understanding was articulated by the Praesidium to Mr. Hebermehl, and it seemed to the Praesidium that this understanding had already been acknowledged by Mr. Hebermehl in his February 19, 2002, letter to Dr. Schulz. Subsequent actions, however, by the Executive Committee and by the Board of Governors of the Int'l LLL have made it clear that they refuse to uphold and to honor the permission, which they gave to Dr. Schulz to perform the duties of his elected office when they allowed him to stand for synodical vice-president. Rather, they have put forward the claim that Dr. Schulz has transgressed a code of ethics of theirs. This is, at best, a post hoc attribution of blame. Dr. Schulz was performing a task given to him to perform by the Praesidium of the LCMS. The Praesidium had every reason to assume that the Int'l LLL would support Dr. Schulz in the performance of his duties. The leadership of the Int'l LLL had not only allowed Dr. Schulz to be elected to the office of vice-president, but the Praesidium was also aware of the February 19, 2002, letter of Mr. Hebermehl to Dr. Schulz indicating further prayers for Dr. Schulz and support for him in the performance of his duties. Now, as it happens, Dr. Schulz has been dismissed from his position as Lutheran Hour Speaker, without question because of pressure placed upon League officials by those in disagreement with the decision rendered by Dr. Schulz in the Benke case. One may, of course, disagree with the decision of Dr. Schulz. However, after very considerable reflection on this matter, I find it
impossible to find justice or right in the treatment, which Dr. Schulz has received from the hands of the Executive Committee, now reaffirmed by the Board of Governors of the League in their October 19, 2002,
resolution. I heard the address of Mr. Al Waldron, President of the Int'l LLL, at the Ottawa convention, and I was simply dismayed that nowhere in that address was the fact that Dr. Schulz was performing his duties
as an officer of Synod acknowledged. Dr. Schulz was simply and exclusively characterized as a transgressor of the League's code of ethics. With all charity, this is a very considerable half-truth. Again, the primary
truth is that the League had assumed unto In all truth, I sincerely regret the conclusion to which these reflections lead me. Dr. Schulz was dismissed from his position as Lutheran Hour Speaker, not because he "in conscience could not accept the terms which would have led to his continued employment," as of October 19, 2002, resolution of the Board of Governors disingenuously asserts. Rather, he was dismissed because his position was allowed to be threatened by the failure of the Int'l LLL leadership to support Dr. Schulz in the performance of his synodical obligations, even though they had assumed the obligation for such support when they had given him permission to be elected to that office. That the present situation is especially controverted does not alter in the least this basic responsibility for courage and justice. You have appointed me, President Kieschnick, to be the LCMS liaison to the Int'l LLL. Unfortunately, the treatment of my colleague on the
Praesidium, Dr. Wallace Schulz, cannot be regarded as only limited to him. It was I, as a member of the Praesidium, who gave Dr. Schulz the responsibility of determining, as he saw fit, the validity of the charges
in the Benke matter. The failure of League leadership to uphold Dr. Schulz in the fulfillment of the obligation, which the Praesidium, of which I am a member, assigned to him, is also an affront to my own office as
a Vice-President of the Synod. Furthermore, I must conclude that the actions of the Int'l LLL against Dr. There is one other, much less consideration for this action. Although I was the Synod's liaison to the League, at no time throughout these weeks and months was I ever contacted either by you or by anyone in leadership positions at the League to inquire after my opinions and perspectives on the situation surrounding Dr. Schulz. I claim no special wisdom. Nonetheless, it would seem that had I enjoyed the confidence either of you or of the Int'l LLL Leadership, I would have been given the opportunity to give whatever input I might have been able to give. My resignation as LCMS Liaison to the Int'l LLL gives you an opportunity to appoint someone else who might enjoy the confidence necessary to serve meaningfully, especially in difficult circumstances, and not simply as a friendly figurehead. I fully understand that the situation arising from the participation of President Benke in an interfaith event has taxed all of us. None of us asked for the burdens we now bear in this matter. Certainly that was the case with you, and it was, if anything, even more in the case with Dr. Wallace Schulz. As I have indicated, I take this action after long reflection, but with the increasing certainty that conscience will not allow me to remain, in this matter, silent. I do hope that you will honor and regard this action of mine as seriously and conscientiously made. Sincerely, William C. Weinrich cc: Mr. Rodger Hebermehl, Executive Director, Int'l LLL + + + + + St. Peter's Lutheran Church and School November 15, 2002 Dr. William Weinrich Dear Bill, I write you as a colleague in ministry from the Class of '72. I pray I do not offend you but what I write must be said. It is difficult to describe how offended and hurt I was by your letter of resignation to Dr. Kieschnick. Do you not understand the harm you have caused our Synod, the issue now threatening to divide our Synod and to me personally. You have now, once again stirred the pot, in an obvious attempt to prejudice my pending case. What you have done is: 1. Now participated in the discussion, despite requirements not to, with your conclusion that I participated in an "Interfaith event", a fact you failed to disclose when you were voting on my prior requests to the Presidium. 2. Made it impossible for you to vote on anything in this matter again on the Presidium by your obvious bias. 3. Disclosed to the world by allowing the letter to be published through out Synod, the inner workings of the Presidium on this matter. 4. Again determined Dr. Schulz "free of cause for recusal" despite the simple fact that he should have been recused based upon his comments prior to my request to recuse him, and despite certain matters involving his conduct not disclosed by him prior to that vote. 5. Failed to recognize in your lengthy but one sided analysis of the League's actions that the conclusion you reached applies equally to me. I.E. "I must conclude that the actions of the International L.L.L. against Dr. Schulz have interfered with and may have materially influenced the Synodical process of adjudication in which Dr. Schulz is a central figure." I believe it the hypocrisy of that conclusion that so totally amazes me. You enter into the fray, with a grandstand approach, with no consideration that you have now directly prejudiced me in my attempts to defend my self. You are working at making Dr. Schulz a martyr. How will this not influence any thinking toward me on the part of the panel? WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING IN THE WHOLE DISCUSSION IS THAT I IMMEDIATELY FAXED THE L.L.L. TOP LEADERSHIP WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO COPY THE ENTIRE BOARD OF GOVERNORS WHEN THE CONTROVERSY AROSE LAST JULY. I ASKED FOR CHRISTIAN CHARITY FOR DR. SCHULZ. THIS IS A PRIVLEGE THAT I ALSO ENJOY AND WHICH APPARENTLY HAS ESCAPED YOUR ATTENTION. I have no idea how this will all work out but I feel that you are a man of honor and will do your best to rectify the havoc you have caused. You can begin by using your office to ask the complainants to withdraw and that my matter be terminated. Further that you assist in an attempt to develop and open and honest debate on the issues as shown by the Model Theological Conference. To do nothing is less than honest and diminishes you in the sight of many. I pray that you will do the proper thing. Your friend in Christ, Dave Benke Cc: Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, President, LCMS |
|
|
Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links |
|