Lutheran Witness and Reporter Firing Revisited:

     In our last edition, we sadly noted that the LCMS Board for Communications Services (BCS) fired Rev. David Mahsman, Director of The Lutheran Witness and Reporter, without cause. He was removed from this called position against the expressed concerns of the entire Council of Presidents. The BCS action seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the authority of the Council of Presidents and President Kieschnick.

     The matter worsens. Synod’s established rules require the BCS to work with the Council of Presidents and President Kieschnick—the very people who opposed the firing of Pastor Mahsman—in order to call a new Director. To sidestep this procedure Synod’s Board of Directors allocated money and created a new position—Assistant Director of The Lutheran Witness and Reporter. (While we are cutting other budgets, amazingly money appears for this new position!) The BCS then issued a call to Rev. Todd Peperkorn, current editor of Consensus.

     There are two serious problems here. First, Consensus has consistently published articles harmful to President Kieschnick and his administration, even attacking Kieschnick’s wife. Pastor Peperkorn cannot be an objective leader of synodical publications. Second, what organization ever hires an assistant prior to hiring the senior staff member? President Kieschnick has asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) if the BCS can hire an assistant without working through the President of Synod. While we await an answer, Kieschnick has asked the BCS to hold the call.

     President Kieschnick is acting in good faith, even when others are trying to hire a man who has consistently opposed him and his administration. Of note, some of the people who screamed that they had the right to fire Pastor Mahsman from his call are now screaming that President Kieschnick should not deprive Pastor Peperkorn of a call he has not accepted. Whether we agree or disagree with LCMS Bylaws, we need to learn to live within them or our beloved Synod will enter a state of anarchy.

Speaking of Bylaws, a very odd notion is appearing on websites and in articles that because Synod’s Bylaws are not from the Bible they can be disregarded. President Kieschnick recently issued a letter that included the following statement: “The confessional base of the Synod and its actions is the Word of God. The fact that statements and positions are adopted as an explanation of the Word is most evident by our adoption of and adherence to the Lutheran Confessions as a correct exposition of the Word. The same principle is involved in the adoption of doctrinal resolutions and statements by the Synod in convention, which principle extends to the Constitution, Bylaws, and convention resolutions. In this way, the Synod expresses its collective understanding of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. Thus, the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions are in place to serve for the common good as collectively agreed upon and in accord with the Word.”

Regarding Delegates at the 2004 Convention, it seems a number of people in the LCMS need to review basic principles of mathematics. The lawsuit referenced on page 6 of this issue contends that 88 exceptions were granted, resulting in 176 votes that gave the election to President Kieschnick. A recent article in Consensus restates the same myth and erroneous calculations. 

     Checking Convention summary reports from LCMS Secretary, Rev. Ray Hartwig, we find that in 2001 Dr. Alvin Barry granted 56 exceptions (81% of all requests), down from 88% granted in 1998. No one ever accused President Barry of declining exceptions for political reasons. In 2004 President Kieschnick granted all requested exceptions, a total of 88.

     If we put the WORST construction on this information, President Kieschnick approved 32 more exceptions, not 88 more, than were approved in 2001. Each exception allegedly provides two delegates, leading Consensus and Lutheran Concerns to state that there were 176 additional delegates. However, each exception actually provides only one additional delegate since non-conforming circuits are usually partnered with other circuits or send only one delegate. Therefore, the number of “additional” delegates could not have been more than 32.

Checking the total number of delegates, we find that there were also 27 new circuits in 2004. President Kieschnick had no control over this number. Each of these new circuits WOULD have provided two new delegates or 54. Finally when we check the most important number, we find that there were 55 more delegates registered in 2004 than in 2001 and 52 more delegates in attendance.

 It is a complete fabrication to state the all of these “extra” delegates came from exceptions!

 However, even if we were to believe that these “extra delegates” ALL voted for President Kieschnick, we find that removing them would NOT have changed the outcome of the election. It certainly seems like a case of sour grapes. Some people are not willing to accept the results and are trying to fabricate numbers that accuse rather than tell the truth. As the old saying goes, “DO THE MATH!”