27 March 2008

FM Figures?

Why weren't the FM figures included? I *thought* that it was the generally understanding that funds generated from KFUO FM Classic were to help underwrite the cost of the Gospel outreach of KFUO AM? Maybe I'm all wet on that? Mr. Ames over on LQ noted the disparity between what Mr. Strand reported and what the Synod's official records show - but the official records don't seem to make a distinction between FM/AM. Why was that distinction made now in reporting only the AM Budget when Synod apparently treats it as a unified budget? I may be all wet. Money is not something I can even pretend to understand. Just a question for clarification, though.

8 comments:

Veith said...

Could you post the link to what Mr. Ames said at LQ? (I'm not sure what that site is.) I'd like to look at those figures. Thanks for keeping us up to date on this fiasco, Pastor Weedon!

William Weedon said...

http://www.lutherquest.org/

Go to General Discussions. Look under Holy Tuesday Treachery, comments by Steve Ames.

orthodoxy hunter said...

5000 signatures!

Susan said...

If this was a letter to shareholders, there would be an immediate call for an independent audit and suspension of Strand for obvious incompetence just based on evidence from his letter. I wish Walther had listened to Lohe about his choice of synod governance being problematic.

ghp said...

Gracious, Susan -- you'd better not say that over at LQ, or you'll be outed as a Sacerdotalist sympathizer!

;^)

But, then, you'll probably already get that by being a reader of Fr. Weedon's blog... ;^) ;^)

Carl Vehse said...

susan wrote, "I wish Walther had listened to Lohe about his choice of synod governance being problematic."

Susan, are you referring to the congregation and synod polity based on the doctrine articulated in Walther's Kirche und Amt (Church and Ministry)?

Indeed, Walther did listen, as the Rev. Dr. George F. Wollenburg pointed out in his essay delivered at the 2002 Walther Free Conference:

In his [Wilhelm Loehe] "Church News From and About North America" - (Kirchliche Nachrichten ous und ueber Nord-Amerika), no. 8:1859 he [Loehe] writes, "The sad experiences which the former Stephanites had with their hierarch, Stephan, have made their hearts very receptive to the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and subsequent theologians, a teaching also reflected in the Lutheran symbols, especially since this doctrine not only commends itself highly to the Christian mind, but also seems made to order for American circumstances." [Ref.] Loehe makes it clear that he regards the conception of the ministry that he held and practiced to differ "from the specific-Lutheran and Lutheran-theological course" but opines that his position has a more "artless attachment to Holy Scripture and antiquity and (by) greater truth in practice."

Ref.: C.F.W. Walther, Editorials from Lehre and Wehre Hubert J. A. Bouman, translator; August Sueflow, Editor (CPH, St Louis, MO, 1981 p. 75,76.

Also you may recall that the synod governance at the convention delegate level is 50 percent pastors. At the level of the presidium and council of presidents it is 100 percent pastors.

As for Glen Piper's allegation that you would be called a "Sacerdotalist sympathizer" at Lutherquest, it's grossly untrue... probably a "Hyper-Euro-Lutheran" or simply an "episcopist." ;-)

ghp said...

Well, sure, but it wouldn't be as alluringly alliterative, now would it?

Now, if it were in Christian News, do you think that would cause 'Sacerdotalist sympathizer' more or less likely to be used? I'm thinking more, esp. if it's CN printing an article written by Rev. Cascione...

;^)

Carl Vehse said...

Well, take your pick of alliterative labels:

Grabau groupie
Loehe legate
mitre moonie
crozier craver
cappa carrier
episcopist epitomizer