Some Questions for the Council of Presidents from Pastor Wilken and the Spectre of a Skunk Meeting, by Pastor Rossow

April 30th, 2009 Post by

Yesterday Pastor Wilken posted a comment on the President Benke story that is worthy of re-posting here for all to read. Pastor Wilken wonders why the Council of Presidents is so concerned about restricting input on the proposals from the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

On Monday we posted one of the typical letters that went out from District Presidents asking people to ignore the Interested Laymen’s Survey that appeared on the web last week. The Interested Laymen are trying to address the secret and opaque way in which the Blue Ribbon Task Force is handling input in response to their proposals. They are taking surveys but not publishing the results. They are also taking input on the synodical website but are not doing so transparently which is so easy to do in this modern information age.

We encourage all of our readers to take this survey. It is fair and balanced and even includes the link to the synodical website so that survey-takers can go directly to the Blue Ribbon’s input page and tell them what they think of the proposals. We here at BJS believe the proposals will increase centralized power in our synod and  also restrict participation from congregations as we have now. We encourage you to take a look for yourself and see what you think. The survey is not easy. It takes at least 45 minutes but the Interested Laymen and made it possible for you to sign in and out of the survey so you can take it a bit at a time.

Yesterday we posted a story including an e-mail from President Benke to the Interested Laymen in which he demanded that they “cease and desist” their efforts to get open and transparent feedback from the synod.

Here is  Pastor Wilken’s comment (comment #4) in response to all of this:

Well now, Dr. Benke’s edict raises so many questions:

  • Why would Dr. Benke want to stifle the free flow of information and suffocate open conversation about President Kieschnick’s plan to restructure the LCMS?
  • Why doesn’t the COP want the laity learning all they can about, and voicing their opinions on President Kieschnick’s plan to restructure the LCMS?
  • Does the COP have legislative authority in the LCMS? Do its decisions have binding force on anyone other than its members? Can the COP issue orders that the pastors, congregations and laity of the LCMS are required to follow?
  • Is Dr. Benke authorized to speak for the COP, or issue orders on its behalf?
  • The legal definition of “cease and desist” is “an order of a court or government agency to a person, business or organization to stop doing something upon a strong showing that the activity is harmful and/or contrary to law.” (Of the several capacities listed by Dr. Benke, I didn’t see that he is also a civil judge or governmental official.)

A “cease and desist” order is usually a prelude to legal action.

Does Dr. Benke contemplate bringing legal action against the recipients of his email if they don’t comply with his order?

We have one more question to ask. We have done a little digging and so far it does not look as though this was an official action from the council of presidents. We have asked several district presidents for documentation that this was  an official act on their part,  including a request from the Interested Laymen to President Benke. None has been forthcoming. So, this all looks like a skunk meeting on behalf of a few district presidents who have made it appear as though it is an official decision of the COP. Since they will not answer the question we will have to wait a month until the minutes come out. If it was an official act of the Council of Presidents then shame on them for seeking to limit free and open input. If it was an unofficial meeting then shame on those presidents who have made it look as though it was official and from on high when all along it carries merely the spectre of an official decree.


Categories: Editor's Introduction Blog Tags:




Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. helen
    April 30th, 2009 at 12:18 | #1

    If a “rump parliament” issued that decree, how many DP’s obediently sent out the discouraging letter? And why did they, if they weren’t involved in the decision?

  2. Dennis Peskey
    April 30th, 2009 at 16:22 | #2

    The last time I checked, DP Benke was not the Chairman of the Council of Presidents. As such, unless the COP has so authorized his letter on their behalf, he (DP Benke) is upsurding the power of the COP for his own interests. If so, perhaps some Christian in the Atlantic District could instruct this DP on vocation and the Fourth Commandment. I can fathom no good reason why a letter to the originator’s of this alternate survey on the BRTFSSG would not bear the entire COP weight if indeed they, as a collective body, are the source of said letter.

  3. Rev. James Kusko
    April 30th, 2009 at 17:42 | #3

    The memo that I recieved from the district (secretary) was addressed:

    To: Council of Presidents for Public Distribution

    Re: A response to the unofficial invitation for individuals to respond to the BRTFFS via web survey

    But there was no source indicated in the memo. If the COP is really the source, then I would expect them to claim authorship.

  4. Jon Enge
    May 1st, 2009 at 13:55 | #4

    Rev. James Kusko said in #3:
    “But there was no source indicated in the memo. If the COP is really the source, then I would expect them to claim authorship.”

    There is an item posted on the Northwest District Web page that indicates that Rev. Dr. Larry Stoterau, Pacific Southwest District President “has sent out the attached memo to all District Presidents regarding the e-mail from the unofficial group that was circulated recently.”

    http://www.nowlcms.org/whats_new_article.aspx?WID=277&DID=2

    I assumed at first that that meant Rev. Storerau “composed” the memo, but I guess “sent out” could just mean that he forwarded it along.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.