|
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
International Center
1333 S. Kirkwood Road
Saint Louis, Missouri 63122- 7295
Office of the Fifth Vice President
29 October 2002
Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
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
itself the responsibility to uphold its speaker in the performance of his
synodically given duties. To be sure, this does not imply any position
taken
concerning any decision, which Dr. Schulz might make. It does definitely
imply this -that Dr. Schulz not suffer administratively imposed penalties
or
sanctions, let alone the loss of his position, because he honorably
received
and fulfilled what the Praesidium had given him to fulfill.
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.
Schulz have interfered with and may have materially influenced the
synodical
process of adjudication in which Dr. Schulz is a central figure. In view
of
these conclusions, to which I am sadly drawn, I wish hereby to inform you
that I resign from the position of LCMS Liaison to the Int'l LLL,
effective
immediately.
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
Fifth Vice-President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
cc: Mr. Rodger Hebermehl, Executive Director, Int'l LLL
Mr. Al Waldron, International President of
the Int'l LLL
Members of the Board of Governors, Int'l
LLL
Members of the LCMS Praesidium
|
|