An Evaluation of Recent Resolution of the COP and
Statement of President Kieschnick
Regarding Issues etc.
The recent resolution of the Council of Presidents regarding the cancellation of Issues, Etc. has received a bit of attention. Most of it negative. Some of the primary criticisms seem to be that the Council of Presidents has added its support to the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and has allowed the President of the Synod to escape scrutiny for his role in this affair. A careful reading of the COP resolution, however, suggests that these and similar criticisms are not justified.
No doubt President Kieschnick will attempt to use the COP resolution and his own statements to exempt himself from any responsibility and attempt to persuade the Synod as a whole to forget about this issue. And perhaps it is fair to be frustrated with the COP for aiding him in his efforts to dodge another controversy that clearly involves him. But in defense of the COP, the resolution does not say what many are attributing to it, and in particular does not excuse the President or the decision to cancel Issues, Etc.
The COP begins with the acknowledgement that the cancellation of Issues, Etc, and the continuing controversy "is not the responsibility of the Council of Presidents." This statement is correct. And it is refreshing in light of the all-too-frequent actions of some in the Synod who fail to recognize the limitations of their responsibilities. The COP has been criticized in the past, rightly or wrongly, for exercising authority it did not have. It is indeed a positive sign to see the COP publicly state it will not involve itself in matters outside its responsibility. To those who may have wanted the COP to take a more active role in the matter, and perhaps actually state a formal position on the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., the COP has simply respectfully declined. Perhaps the COP could have done and said nothing. This might have been better, and more consistent with its acknowledgement that it has no authority over the matters. But in addressing the issues, at least the COP limited its statement to matters within its realm of responsibility, which concerns matters of the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. And in doing so, it did not point the finger at any one party. So the counsel provided by the COP includes those who may have violated the Eighth Commandment when publicly criticizing the author of a recent Wall Street Journal article on this matter.
Some seem to suggest that the COP is defending David Strand's decision to cancel Issues, Etc., when it states "We must regard with Christian charity and trust the judgment of our duly elected brothers and sisters in Christ on the BCS, along with its Executive Director, Mr. David Strand." Note carefully what is said here. The request is made to "trust the judgment" of the BCS and David Strand. No request is made to agree with the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. The COP has limited itself to asking members of the Synod to regard this decision with Christian charity, which should be done. When considering David Strand's past history with the LCMS there is reason to trust his judgment. During his many years as an employee of Synod he has generally stayed out of the controversies. That is not an easy task, given the positions he has held. Of course his past history of avoiding controversies does not mean he made the right decision when cancelling Issues, Etc. Notwithstanding his past judgment, his decision to cancel Issues, Etc. was obviously exceptionally unwise and counter-productive. It seems the COP is simply asking that a man who has generally exercised good judgment in the past be treated with Christian charity. Of course he should be treated with Christian charity and his judgment trusted, even though he had a serious lapse of judgment in this instance.
The COP also rightly states "The Synod has given the authority for oversight and implementation of KFUO and its programming decisions to the Board for Communication Services (BCS)." Here the COP correctly distinguishes between having authority and making good decisions. The COP speaks only to authority and respecting that authority under the Fourth Commandment. The COP has stayed out of evaluating the wisdom of the decision, other than expressing its regret regarding its timing. To attribute to the COP any evaluation of the wisdom of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. reads into the resolution matters not stated.
Perhaps the COP resolution could be read as asking that the judgment of David Strand - and now the BCS, which has refused to correct Mr. Strand's blunder - should be trusted specifically with respect to the cancellation of Issues, Etc. The COP resolution is a bit ambiguous in its wording. But in light of the COP's acknowledgement that the cancellation of Issues, Etc. is not within its responsibility, it would be quite contradictory for the COP to take a position on this issue, particularly since the COP did not have all relevant information presented to it. Charity requires that the COP resolution not be read to make the COP hypocritical. Thus reading the COP resolution, ambiguous as it is, as supporting the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. is not correct.
What is most significant about the COP resolution is its very limited scope. In reality, it says virtually nothing about the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., other than that David Strand had the authority to make the decision, which he did, that this matter is under the authority of the BCS, which it is, and that the timing of the decision - during Holy week - was bad. Perhaps some would like the COP to acknowledge the obvious lack of wisdom in and divisive and counter-productive effect of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. Perhaps others would like the COP to encourage the President to counsel for reconsideration of the decision to cancel Issues, Etc., which the President has the ability to do. The COP also could have requested the BCS and Board of Directors to exercise the authority they clearly have to reverse this decision, but chose not to do so. All of this simply illustrates the COP's acknowledgement of its limited authority, and complete lack of authority in this specific matter. Is it fair to criticize the COP for exercising authority it does not have, and then also criticize it for not exercising authority it does not have?
The statements of the President are a different story. When responding to a Wall Street Journal article, President Kieschnick stated that Issues, Etc. was cancelled only "after years of attempts to keep the program financially solvent." The minutes of the Board of Directors and the BCS over the past many years contain many references of financial problems throughout the Synod. Many of these financial problems have been very serious, and some have dealt specifically with KFUO AM and KFUO FM. But keeping Issues, Etc "financially solvent" or even identifying it as a financial problem is conspicuously absent from the minutes. The Board of Directors Minutes are quite detailed regarding financial matters. Thus the absence of any discussion of Issues, Etc. as a financial problem for KFUO AM is quite telling. Certainly there have been issues raised about the KFUO radio stations, both AM and FM, and many disputes and disagreements over how best to account for certain overhead attributed to KFUO AM. But the financial solvency of Issues, Etc. has not been raised as a concern. On the contrary, Issues, Etc. has always been universally recognized as an exceptionally successful program of evangelism and mission. The financial figures given by the President also do not justify a financial basis for the decision to cancel the Issues, Etc. program. Most of the data given is about KFUO AM generally, and not Issues, Etc.
Curious also is the President's statement that the "Listeners of 'Issues, Etc.' have had nine years and countless invitations and opportunities to support the program financially, and some have, but not nearly enough to offset the show’s deep, ongoing losses." Is an evangelism effort required to break even financially? Are the "listeners" in the mission field required to raise enough money to support the missionaries sent to them to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments? Is this now the standard used to evaluate the worth of a program and determine whether it will continue to be funded? There are many, many, many programs throughout the Synod that have for years operated on the basis of donations that are not sufficient to cover expenses. This is true throughout all denominations, and all non-profit organizations. Why is Issues, Etc. singled out for cancellation? Should we also cancel our ministry to all minority groups, the blind and deaf, and all foreign missions?
The President also proclaims that the decision was in no way political. Of course it is not possible to judge the President's motives in this matter. But would Mr. Strand have made this decision a year ago? Would the members of the BCS, as that board was constituted at the time, have permitted it? And if this decision had been made 4 years ago would the then Board of Directors have permitted it? The decision was made now because it was politically possible to do so. The members of the Board of Directors have changed. And with new members on the Board of Directors, new members were in turn appointed to the BCS, which in turn supervises Mr. Strand. It is also worth asking whether this decision would have been made by Mr. Strand if John Wohlrabe or Daniel Preus or
The President states further that "the decision was made solely by Mr. Strand." However, the President could have counseled him against making such an unwise decision, and no doubt Mr. Stand would have followed such advice. The President also could have encouraged him to consult with the entire BCS before making his decision, instead of simply the BCS Chairman, and again Mr. Strand undoubtedly would have followed such advice. Mr. Strand also could have been encouraged to wait until after the conclusion of the recent KFUO fundraising before making the decision or to request the Board of Directors for assistance at its budget meeting only a couple of months away . Yes, technically, "the decision was made solely by Mr. Strand." But President Kieschnick could have prevented this decision, and prevented all the division and controversy that has followed, not to mention the loss of one of the Synod's most effective outreach programs.
Christian A. Preus
Member, LCMS Board of Directors 1995-2007
No comments:
Post a Comment