LLL Members Coached To Respond To Questions about Schulz firing

The following "copy points" were issued by the LLL headquarters to help LLL members explain why Dr. Wallace Schulz was fired from the Lutheran Hour.

The following is an astounding list of mental gymnastics supplied by the LLL. Perhaps the members of the LLL would like the same treatment from their own employers. After you read this list we are to believe that:

1. Schulz fired himself.
2. If an LCMS Vice President follows the code of conduct required by the Synodical Constitution he will be fired from the LLL for not following the LLL code of conduct.
3. The LLL has the right to tell LCMS officers how to do their job in the
LCMS.
4. It is Schulz's fault that President Kieschnick informed the Synod that he
disagreed with Schulz's decision in the Benke Case before the case has been settled.
5. Schulz must cheat the LCMS in order to be loyal to the LLL.
6. The LLL wants to be an auxiliary organization of the LCMS even though it fires LCMS officials because they follow the LCMS Constitution.

September 18, 2002

.   The Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz is not returning to Lutheran Hour Ministries.

.   The desire of the board and the executive director was to bring him back into LHM's     team ministry. Dr. Schulz, however, declined to agree to the stipulations that the board of governors established as the mechanism to restore him to service.

.   The stipulations, which the board directed the executive director to develop, were constructive in nature. They were meant to insure that Dr. Schulz understood what would be required of him to be part of a team
ministry.

.   We regret that we could not reach agreement that would restore him to service. We sincerely continue to pray for God's blessings on Dr. Schulz and his ministry, and we ask for your prayers for him and for the continued success of Lutheran Hour Ministries.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. DID DR. SCHULZ RESIGN, OR WAS HE TERMINATED?

Actually, neither occurred. Dr. Schulz chose not to agree to the stipulations that the board established as the mechanism that would allow him to return to service. It was made clear to him that he would be considered to have vacated his position if he did not agree. He voluntarily took the action that led to his separation.

2. HOW CAN DR. SCHULZ BE TREATED IN THIS WAY WHEN HE HAD A CALL?

Dr. Schulz did not have a call to Lutheran Hour Ministries. He was an employee, as is everyone who works for the organization.

3. WHAT WERE DR. SCHULZ'S VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY?

The code of ethics contains this paragraph: "There will be times when the choice of conduct is not clear. When faced by an unclear choice, ask yourself this question: 'If my actions were to be published, would league supporters agree that the best interests of all were served?' If the choice is still not clear, ask for guidance from your supervisor, other league officers of pastoral advisors."

The conflict of interest policy states: "Activities shall not be entered into which may knowingly be detrimental to the interests of the International Lutheran Laymen's League and its subsidiaries."

The League takes no position on the issue that this matter revolves around, namely, that of the Atlantic District president's participation in a post-September 11, 2001, service at Yankee Stadium. However, the Executive Committee anticipated that any ruling Dr. Schulz made in the matter could harm our ministry and asked him to recuse himself. Despite that request, he elected to rule. In the process, he pulled Lutheran Hour Ministries into a controversy that has polarized the League.

Remember that in situations like this, the code of ethics signed by Dr. Schulz and all employees required him to ask for guidance from his supervisor, other league officers or pastoral advisors. The conflict of interest policy bars employees from entering into activities that may be knowingly detrimental to the interests of the League. Dr. Schulz sought no guidance in this matter and did not recuse himself after being asked to do so.

4. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE POLARIZATION TO WHICH YOU REFER?

Remember, the issue is not how Dr. Schulz ruled in the case involving the Atlantic District president, it's that he ruled at all. And when he did, stations took our programs off the air. Sponsors withheld support. Many listeners and donors turned away from us. Others have lobbied us repeatedly to stand by and endorse Dr. Schulz's action. In all cases, attention has been deflected from the Gospel and toward human beings and their institutions. These are major obstacles to our mission of bringing Christ to the nations and the nations to the church.

5. HOW CAN ALL OF THIS HAPPEN SO SOON AFTER DR. SCHULZ WAS HONORED FOR 25 YEARS OF SERVICE AND PROMOTED?

It is regrettable that this happened so close to his 25th anniversary. Dr. Schulz has made many contributions to The Lutheran Hour and the League, and he deserves to be recognized for that. And please understand that we continue to see him as a man of many gifts and talents and pray for the continued success of his ministry. Still, we had to have agreement between him and Lutheran Hour Ministries about what is required to be part of a ministry team, and regrettably we were not able to reach such agreement.

6. DID DR. SCHULZ HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT HIS ACTION WOULD HAVE SUCH
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES BEFORE HE TOOK IT. HE HAS A LETTER SAYING HE WOULD BE SUPPORTED REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER ACTION HE TOOK.

It is true that statements to that effect appear in a letter dated February 19. It is equally true, however, that we sent a letter to Dr. Kieschnick dated April 3 with a copy to Dr. Schulz and the rest of the synodical Presidium. We did so at Dr. Schulz's urging, and in that letter, it was stated clearly that we believed Dr. Schulz's involvement in the Benke decision could be in conflict with his duties as an employee of the Int'l LLL. We cited evidence of how Dr. Schulz's involvement, even before his decision, was polarizing the League. If there was any doubt that we were highly concerned about this issue and wanted him not to decide the case, that doubt was removed in this letter.

It is true that the Presidium declined to relieve Dr. Schulz of the case, but it's also true that he could have recused himself even then. As he pointed out in his decision in regard to Dr. Benke, "every Christian and
especially every clergyman is finally responsible for his own actions even though someone else may permit/authorize, or even command you to do something, you are still accountable for your own actions."

7. DR. SCHULZ SAYS THE STIPULATIONS WOULD HAVE COMPROMISED HIS ORDINATION VOWS. WHAT WERE THE STIPULATIONS, AND HOW COULD YOU ASK HIM TO SIGN SOMETHING SO COMPROMISING?

The intent of our executive director has been to keep discussions on them a private matter between him and Dr. Schulz. The stipulations were meant to be constructive and to ensure a mutual understanding of what is required to be part of the team ministry of LHM.

I understand that Dr. Schulz raised the issue of a conflict with ordination vows after he was originally presented with a set of stipulations. He did not clearly articulate his concerns. However, in an effort to be responsive, our executive director sought counsel and advice from synodical leaders including Dr. Schulz's ecclesiastical supervisor, the president of the Missouri District of the LCMS. I know our executive director is convinced the he has adequately addressed Dr. Schulz's concerns, and the League's spiritual advisor, the Rev. Barry Keurulainen, agrees.

8. WHAT GIVES MR HEBERMEHL THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE DR. SCHULZ'S POSITION VACANT?

Mr. Hebermehl is the executive director of LHM. He has operational jurisdiction over all employees, including Dr. Schulz. The board affirmed his authority to handle this matter, to develop stipulations and to require Dr. Schulz's agreement.

9. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT DR. SCHULZ'S STANDING AS A SECOND VICE PRESIDENT OF SYNOD?

We have no indication that it will have any effect. He will continue to hold this office.

10. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SYNOD'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS CONSIDERING ACTION THAT WOULD REMOVE LHM's STATUS AS AN AUXILIARY ORGANIZATION. IS THIS TRUE?

The board's minutes show that a resolution indicating that the board might wish to study this question and make a recommendation on it to the next synodical convention was tabled at the August board meeting. Beyond that, this is a question that should properly be addressed to the board. It is not my place to speak for them.

11. DO YOU BELIEVE THE ACTION IN REGARD TO DR. SCHULZ SHOULD JEOPARDIZE THE LEAGUE'S AUXILIARY STATUS?

No. The League continues to be fully supportive of the mission, ministry and doctrine of the Missouri Synod, and it is proud to be an auxiliary of the denomination.

12. WILL DR. SCHULZ BE REPLACED? HOW WILL THE LUTHERAN HOUR CONTINUE?

There are not definite plans at this time. Staff will make sure that The Lutheran Hour will always have a qualified speaker in place to meet our program schedules. The Rev. Ken Klaus, our new Lutheran Hour Ministries speaker, has been taking on more of the speaking load in recent weeks, and he has been doing an excellent job.

13. WILL DR. SCHULZ RECEIVE A SEVERANCE PACKAGE AND, IF SO, HOW BIG WILL IT BE?

I understand that a severance package is being developed, however, this is a
private matter between Dr. Schulz and the League.