The Choice Before Us: Continued Conflict or a Process of Peace

Consensus ^ | June 15, 2004 | Jim Heap

[sauerkraut]

When will the conflict in the Missouri Synod come to an end? We must employ a process of peace in the context of trust. This process requires three essential aspects to resolve a conflict or argument about particular issues. Both sides must:

1) Be heard 2) Feel that their concerns have been fairly considered 3) Trust the process of decision-making.

Without accomplishing these three things, the conflict will continue, either with simmering frustration or with outright rancor. Good leadership will strive to accomplish these three conditions in order to bring about peace.

Over the past three years, the Synod’s president has not employed this process of peace. His approach to conflict has demonstrated a pattern of distrust toward others. In his relationship with the other leaders the Synod has elected to its boards and commissions, President Kieschnick appears to reserve his confidence only for those he has personally appointed to office. Fundamental rules of conflict resolution have been repeatedly broken as a result of this distrust. It will lead inevitably to continued and widening divisions if this pattern continues over the next three years. The president’s distrust begins with the Synod’s governing board, the Board of Directors (BOD), which is elected by the convention. He appointed new members to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM), which soon pursued a path of confrontation with the BOD by issuing a series of controversial opinions. President Kieschnick is himself a voting member of the BOD, yet he did not attend a November 2003 meeting at which the BOD discussed ways to resolve the conflict his appointees created. In the end, the BOD observed that the CCM’s opinions exceeded its “precisely defined service function” and determined that they were, therefore, “of no effect.” President Kieschnick made no effort to discuss these resolutions with the Board. Former President Robert Kuhn (for two decades one of the Synod’s most respected and trusted leaders) chairs the BOD, yet President Kieschnick did not contact him with his questions and concerns. Instead, President Kieschnick wrote a public message directly to every pastor in the Synod and simply took the side of the group he himself had appointed. He trusted his own appointees but not the board elected by the Synod. When he made his disagreement public without discussing the matter first, he broke rule number one. President Kieschnick made his decision before even giving one side a fair hearing.

The BOD proposed a solution at that point that President Kieschnick could easily have found acceptable. They turned to a group they appoint “in consultation with and mutual concurrence” with the President – one whose members had been approved by both sides of the disagreement. This group’s official responsibilities made them the perfect choice to settle the matter. The handbook says their function is to “assist the Convention in maintaining the Handbook of the Synod by identifying and recommending modification to areas of concern.” This group is called the Commission on Structure (COS). But President Kieschnick’s distrust was not limited to the BOD – he did not appear to trust the COS either. The COS’s recommendations have gone largely ignored by President Kieschnick. This broke rule number two: President Kieschnick did not allow for unbiased decisions to be made.

Now it appears the matter will end up at the convention. Or will it? The Synodical President appoints every member of every floor committee (surely President Kieschnick will trust them). A peacemaker would appoint balanced committees made up of people who will solicit all the information and opinions they can in preparation for the convention. These people determine what resolutions will be brought before the Synod in convention. Will the floor committees ensure that all concerns are fairly considered? If not, then the second rule of peacemaking is not being followed.

In fact, the pattern of distrust seems to have colored several time-honored processes of preparing for a synodical convention. At the Floor Committee meetings in May, no BOD members were invited to attend until well after their travel arrangements had been finalized. Changed flight plans to permit their participation would have cost thousands of dollars. No Vice-Presidents were invited to attend until the last minute. Members of the Commission on Structure were not invited to appear before the Floor Committee on Structure. The President’s own appointees to the CTCR were prominent among its representatives. President Benke was appointed to the Floor Committee dealing with the theological controversies he himself has stirred up. Members of the CCM appointed by the President were invited into executive sessions to help draft resolutions while others were excluded. Some of these resolutions deal with expanding the responsibilities and role of the CCM. Both sides were not heard, breaking rule one again. Trust is lacking.

Will President Kieschnick distrust the Synod’s convention itself? Will he limit the information which the delegates receive, or spring important decisions upon them at the last minute? Will he limit their ability to nominate from the floor, or to debate and amend the resolutions written by his appointed floor committees? Will he permit the convention to hear from the Synod’s other leaders – those elected to Boards and Commissions? If not, then the Synod’s final and authoritative method of making decisions – the vote of the convention – will be corrupted and suppressed. Rule number three will be broken.

President Kieschnick appointed all the members to a special “Blue Ribbon” Task Force on Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution. Then he created a special Floor Committee (#8) to deal with the same subjects, and appointed all of its members. The proposals from this Task Force and Floor Committee could bring about further centralization and complexity in the Synod’s very processes of resolving conflict. The result would be to insulate District and Synodical staff and officials against any real accountability to the pastors and laypeople of the Synod. If such proposals are enacted by this convention, the third vital component of a process of peace will be crippled – perhaps beyond repair.

A chilling exchange from the latest BOD minutes may portend what’s in store. The BOD proposed a motion stating its shared desire with the President to bring their disagreement to a peaceful resolution. Acknowledging their differences on recent CCM opinions, it was proposed that the President and the Board together agree to ask the Synod in convention to affirm or overturn the CCM opinions that the Board resolved to be “of no effect”. Both sides would submit to the judgment of the pastors and laypeople voting at the convention. After some discussion, President Kieschnick made it clear that he would not agree to such a proposal. If the convention itself cannot be trusted, how can peace be restored?

If the three vital elements of a process for peace are not followed, the result will be three more years of argument, rancor, distrust, and divisions. To earn trust one must learn trust. President Kieschnick appears to distrust Synodically-elected boards, commissions he has not handpicked, time-honored convention processes and even the Synod itself. We need a leader who will observe the fundamentals of peacemaking:

1) give both sides a hearing, 2) allow for unbiased decisions and 3) trust the process of decision making.

Without leaders who will work toward peace by acting with trust, the conflict will continue.

[sauerkraut]

This is purely meant for my brothers and sisters within the LCMS. I was told by a man with a straight face that Kieschnick would unite the synod. Rather, he has played politics and has poured salt into an already wounded body. He needs to go.

[redgolum]

Send out the Lutheran ping.

The convention in a few weeks will be interesting, but in a bad way. I do not see either side being willing to compromise. Hopefully the result is not a split.

[Aeronaut]

Thanks for the ping.

[Charles Henrickson]

This is purely meant for my brothers and sisters within the LCMS. I was told by a man with a straight face that Kieschnick would unite the synod. Rather, he has played politics and has poured salt into an already wounded body. He needs to go.

I agree with you. I think 1VP Daniel Preus has a good chance of winning, and he is my choice.

[ahadams2]

Okay, now would Pastor Henrickson or one of you other guys mind explaining what the controversy(?ies?) is (?are?) all about. I have a lot of relatives who are in the LCMS, and I'm certain other freepers do too. This article seems to assume all of it's readers know what's going on - and a lot of freepers (myself included) don't.

Also, being the guy who ends up posting a lot of Anglican 'dirty laundry' in public, I feel qualifed to ask y'all to explain just a little more about this whole mess!:-)

[Charles Henrickson]

Okay, now would Pastor Henrickson or one of you other guys mind explaining what the controversy(?ies?) is (?are?) all about.

Do you have a few hours? :-) Really, it's been one thing after another for three years now.

One major controversy was ignited when Synod President Kieschnick approved District President Benke's participation in an interfaith prayer service--something Benke had done before and been reprimanded for (by a different synod president) and promised never to do again.

But Kieschnick has defended this violation of our synodical constitution by: 1) misrepresenting what actually took place at the "event," 2) misapplying a synodical resolution that really does not apply to this situation, 3) stacking the commission that would make rulings pertaining to the case, 4) threatening those who have criticized his decision, and 5) coming up with a version of the "Nuremberg Defense"--that the individual involved cannot be subject to discipline if he had the approval of his ecclesiastical supervisor. All of this has the potential to change the very nature and historic position of our synod in a dangerous direction.

That's just for starters.

To get up to speed, here are the two best confessional websites on the issues facing our synod:

Consensus

Crisis in the LCMS

[redgolum]

I am not up on 100% of the details, but here is the stuff I do know.

Kieschnick was elected to the presidency of the LCMS by a VERY narrow margin in 2000. He is of the more "liberal" minded LCMS, no liturgy, church growth (Day Star, Jesus First, etc), and rumored to be at least open to women ordination (if that happens, I will no longer be in the LCMS).

The match that lit the bonfire was the Yankee Stadium event. In 2001, Oprah set up an interfaith memorial service in Yankee Stadium and invited local pastors, rabbis, iamms, and what ever you call a Hindu leader to participate.

One of those invited was a LCMS pastor by the name of Beneke. He asked his district president if he could go, and was given approval. Beneke took part in the service, and prayed or appeared to pray with those of non Lutheran and more importantly non Christian religions.

In traditional Lutheran (and most Christian) denominations, this is not done. It is something that implies that every religion that was represented on that stage was equal, which is false when you think about Christianity compared to Islam or Hinduism.

Immediately after YS, there were calls to censure Beneke and for Kieschnick to take action with the Atlantic coast deistic president. With out getting to much into the muddy details, it brought many of the other objections to Kieschnick's views to the forefront. My biggest problem is the "mega church" approach to evangelizing and growth. In the area I used to live there was one "LCMS in name only" Mega church that had a great song and dance show, but little substance. The Nebraska district has tried to reform them, but many of the pastors do not see any thing wrong with open communion, feel good sermons, and watered down theology. After all, it packs the house.

There are many other things of which I am only partially aware of, and will let Pastor Henrickson talk about.

[redgolum]

Opps, didn't see that you had already responded to this. In your opinion, what do you think will happen at the convention next month?

[Charles Henrickson]

Well, your summary in the post above is pretty much on target, it just needs a little fine tuning here and there.

It so happens that I have written and spoken extensively on the Benke-Kieschnick matter. If you want to see a presentation I gave on it, you can find it here:

Yankee Stadium Prayer Service Analysis

[Charles Henrickson]

In your opinion, what do you think will happen at the convention next month?

Difficult to say. It could go either way--or in two opposite ways, i.e., some elections and/or resolutions could be good, and some could be bad. LCMS conventions sometimes act in a schizophrenic manner (see 1969, 1992).

I think President Kieschnick has done everything necessary--namely, create controversy and turmoil, alienate lots of people, etc.--in order for an incumbent to lose. That doesn't happen very often in the Missouri Synod. I really think Daniel Preus has a good chance of beating him, which would be terrific. If the conservative/confessional votes will stick together throughout all the ballots, even as the two other good candidates drop off--if the Marquart and Wenthe votes all end up with Preus, then I think Preus has a good chance to win.

Another key will be how the convention deals with the "jerry-rigged" nominations and proposed resolutions. Floor nominations will be essential in order to get better candidates elected to the various boards and commissions. And the delegates will need to be ready to defeat or amend a lot of the poor resolutions that have come out of the stacked floor committees.

So much depends on the leanings of the delegates who were elected months ago.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I've been so horribly disappointed and upset during the term of Kieschnick. I pray that we have delegates that are committed to keeping our beloved LCMS deeply rooted in the Truth.

This has been a trying time. I am still steaming over the dismissal of Schulz. I will not give a dime to the Lutheran Hour now.

I hope we all remember to keep the whole synod in prayer as well as the various districts.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

FYI to a fellow Lutheran.

[redgolum]

I have been lurking at the Luther Quest message boards for a while now. Some of the more hardline posters (the uber conservatives I made reference to in an earlier posting) seem to want to split the LCMS, and excommunicate the PLI members.

I don't like what Kieschnick has done in a number of places, and the whole Church growth movement is already showing some of its bad fruit, but I like the prospect of an out and out schism ever less. Ever since YS there seems to have been a stepping up of the political games by both sides.

Actually, maybe it was only that I have become more aware of what has been going on since then. It was pretty easy in my old Chicago church to adopt the "bunker" mind set and only focus on the daily challenges and not on the big picture.

[sauerkraut]

I think Pastor Hendrickson did an excellent job explaining what is going on and why we are now on the path we are. The links he gives are excellent, and I personally know the pastor who runs the Crisis site, and I can vouch that he is an honorable and fair man.

[ahadams2]

Okay, let me see how much of this I've got right - though I'm ignoring the Lutheran Hour controversy since it appears to be secondary to what else is happening. [and I'm still uncertain of what all is going on there.]

1. You've got a Synod President (equivalent to an Anglican Presiding Bishop or senior Archbishop - our terminology varies geographically) who isn't sure which denomination he's in; doesn't think he has to play by the rules; thinks 'syncretism' has something to do with music; and tends to encourage these sorts of confusion in others. [BTW: what's up with that picture of him dressed like an RC bishop for pete's sake?]

2. You've got a bunch of different groups who are trying to take advantage of the confusion to advance a number of different agendas, some which might be classed as Christian, perhaps even Protestant, though not traditionally Lutheran; while others sound a whole lot like some of the new age wacko heretics with whom we Anglicans are having to deal at this time. [I thought you folks had purged all the new age types 30 years ago, didn't you?]

3. Your confused Synod President and his cronies are, without proper authority, attempting to impose a more rigid top-down heirarchy on the entire denomination, which is also contrary to traditional Lutheran theology and practice. In order to accomplish this, it appears they may be attempting to 'front end load' the nominations process at your upcoming Synodical Convention.

and finally

4. Many of your local parishes are copying the traditional Anglican "if it isn't happening right here, it isn't happening at all" method of ignoring problems outside of their own immediate perview. I might add that due to the more decentralized nature of Lutheran authority your folks have even more options in this regard than our folks do.

Is that about it, or did I miss something?

BTW: I am aware of a number of conservative Evangelical Anglicans who have jumped [don't you love those techinical theological terms?:-)] to LCMS parishes when their local ecusa parish or diocese went over to the heretics...I bet *they* are about ready to have kittens, seeing this sort of stuff start up among you folks as well! yeesh!

[sauerkraut]

1. You've got a Synod President (equivalent to an Anglican Presiding Bishop or senior Archbishop - our terminology varies geographically) who isn't sure which denomination he's in; doesn't think he has to play by the rules; thinks 'syncretism' has something to do with music; and tends to encourage these sorts of confusion in others. [BTW: what's up with that picture of him dressed like an RC bishop for pete's sake?] The equivalency is approximate, due to the polity we have, but in general that is what's happening. A bureaucrat from Texas was elected (and all the confessional Texans were screaming and yelling that electing him was a mistake) and he was elected because the conservatives couldn't make up their minds. He has proven himself to be a poor theologian but an excellent politician. He claims everyone else is ignoring the synod constitution and bylaws while ignoring both himself. He's pulling the strings and trying to set it up so that the groups that supported him have a chance to implement their agenda (and his agenda because he had an integral part in forming one of these groups) that does not in any way, shape or form resemble Lutheranism but, rather, American Protestantism. That's not him dressed up as an R.C. bishop. That's an R.C. bishop. That is a picture of the Yankee Stadium service. 2. You've got a bunch of different groups who are trying to take advantage of the confusion to advance a number of different agendas, some which might be classed as Christian, perhaps even Protestant, though not traditionally Lutheran; while others sound a whole lot like some of the new age wacko heretics with whom we Anglicans are having to deal at this time. [I thought you folks had purged all the new age types 30 years ago, didn't you?] One group (Renewal in Missouri) is trying to merge Lutheran and charismatic theology, another group (Jesus First) is trying to bring American Evangelicalism and merge it with Lutheran theology, and two other groups (Daystar and Voices/Visions) are trying to bring back the liberalism that infected the LCMS 30 years ago. You have to remember, historical criticism crept in about 1960ish, so there was a good 15-20 years worth of pastors trained by what eventually became SEMINEX (the liberals) who are now taking advantage of the opportunity. We purged the source, but we didn't purge the contamination. You remember that saying that a little leaven can ruin the whole loaf? When you look at the leadership, Jesus First and Daystar are almost indistinguishable. 3. Your confused Synod President and his cronies are, without proper authority, attempting to impose a more rigid top-down heirarchy on the entire denomination, which is also contrary to traditional Lutheran theology and practice. In order to accomplish this, it appears they may be attempting to 'front end load' the nominations process at your upcoming Synodical Convention. I wouldn't call our synodical president confused. He knows exactly what he is doing. He's trying to do what the groups that supported him want him to do: he's trying to get complete control at the top. Anybody who tries telling me otherwise is ignoring everything that has happened so far. 4. Many of your local parishes are copying the traditional Anglican "if it isn't happening right here, it isn't happening at all" method of ignoring problems outside of their own immediate purview. I might add that due to the more decentralized nature of Lutheran authority your folks have even more options in this regard than our folks do. Amazingly, many of the parishes are now polarized. There are many parishes that are doing exactly what you described above, but not as many as you might think. Almost all the parishes in my area are polarized politically. BTW: I am aware of a number of conservative Evangelical Anglicans who have jumped [don't you love those technical theological terms?:-)] to LCMS parishes when their local ecusa parish or diocese went over to the heretics...I bet *they* are about ready to have kittens, seeing this sort of stuff start up among you folks as well! yeesh! I know a couple who did just that. It absolutely killed both of them because they both grew up in the ECUSA. At least the priest had enough sense to send them our way. They have adjusted well and the parish I attend has a very faithful Lutheran pastor. This church will stand its ground. I think that just about covers everything. OK, not really, but it covers the basics.

[redgolum]

Good post! The horrible thing about this is it is destroying some congregations. In my old church, the confessionals had been largely driven out till the new associate pastor came in. He balanced out the senior pastor and brought in A LOT of good Lutheran theology in the Bible studies. Well, now the associate pastor has moved to a bigger challenge (one of the mega churches) and is trying to change some things there. Once again the confessional Lutherans in my old congregation are getting pushed out.