The following is a reply objecting to our resolution
to the 2001 LC-MS Convention seeking to revise the call process. After the
reply we offer further comments.
Dear Reclaim,
I'm a fairly new pastor, out of the sem now 4.5 years and I am appalled at
the ignorance of whomever is responsible for this resolution to amend the call
process from the Seminaries. Though I am not saying the current process is
free from error, I must say that the whereas clauses in your resolution are
dripping with in accuracy and unfair conclusions.
During my four years at the Seminary and two years at a Concordia
University prior to that, I never once heard any student express a reluctance
to entering the ministry because of fear of becoming "political
pawns" in any way. In fact, in numerous contacts and conversations with
pastors 10 years or more in the ministry and in comparing the call process as
it was for them, it seemed overwhelmingly unanimous that the current process
is heads and shoulders above what they experienced as far as truly seeking to
consider the needs of both the congregations and candidates.
I have been trying for the last month or so, since I have been receiving
your e-mails to understand who and what Reclaim is all about and it has been
admittedly difficult. I'm afraid I'm beginning to get a handle on it with this
latest resolution and it doesn't appear to be good. You are showing yourselves
to be hypocrites in the sense that you claim to be against the
"politicizing" in synod but you are acting very political in trying
to Push YOUR view onto the delegates and members of synod. I have great
difficulty with anyone that places a form resolution before the masses and
tries to get them to "buy in to it" without first discussing and
understanding all of the background history, etc. Do you really want people to
agree to and vote for something that they don't clearly understand?
Please consider your actions more carefully or I fear you will end up
showing yourself to be the same as those your are speaking against!
Sincerely in Christ,
Pastor Keith Besel
Superior, CO
kbesel@ctrlc.org
Dear Pastor Keith Besel:
First, if your experience with the call process was positive this should be
published. Perhaps the experience is basically positive for all involved.
However, it is rather difficult to speak for those who don't want to involve
themselves in the call process by not attending an LC-MS Seminary.
In 1992, Dr. John Heins, President of the Council of Presidents, helped
prevent the placement of 32 graduates from Fort Wayne. This action helped Al
Barry defeat Ralph Bohlmann as President of the LC-MS at Pittsburgh.
As to the use of drawing lots for placing Seminary graduates: in an
election for the BHE at the 1998 Convention, we all witnessed the defeat of
Dr. Larry White by the candidate with fewer votes when the candidate with few
votes had his name picked out of the hat at the Convention. We were told this
was God pleasing and a Biblical way to determine an election.
If the process is good for picking candidates for Synodical office then it
should be equally good for candidates for the ministry. The reason given at
the time was "fairness." These facts are indisputable but you don't
believe the practice of drawing lots should have wider use in the interest of
preventing political abuse.
As to the purpose of Reclaim News: we have a highly political goal, which
we suspect you, as a recent graduate, oppose. Namely we want the reaffirmation
of Walther's polity and Voter Supremacy in all LC-MS congregations.
You write: "You are showing yourselves to be hypocrites in the sense
that you claim to be against the "politicizing" in synod but you are
acting very political in trying to push YOUR view onto the delegates and
members of synod."
Yes, we are pushing OUR views. In 1995 we forced the name Lutheran on many
LC-MS congregations through the adoption of a Convention Resolution.
In 1998 we forced LC-MS congregations to confess the three Creeds and only
three Creeds through the adoption of a Convention Resolution.
Now, we are attempt the ultimate politicization of the LC-MS in trying to
force many delegates to support Congregational Voter Supremacy.
At least we know that you object to our political goals and that you will
have no part in our latest innovation in promoting lay leadership.