Tino's Blog

What does the New Structure mean for missions?

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:55:00 -0400

I am sure that many have been following the developments of the 2010 LCMS convention in Houston with interest. In case you have been on vacation or living under a rock, the convention elected a new president and vice-president (Rev. Matthew Harrison, pres; and Rev. Herbert Mueller, VP). Even more interesting, though, is that the convention approved the resolution to re-structure our Synod into two commissions - one for "national mission" and the other for "international mission". This effectively eliminates all of the program boards of the Synod, including the Board for Mission Services.

What will be the impact of this new structure? Will it help the cause of our international mission efforts, or harm it? Personally, I have not been able to effectively visualize what this new structure would look like, or how it would operate. In our globalizing world, one cannot even neatly divide tasks into "national" and "international". For example, disaster relief, human care, chaplains, LCEF, Laborers for Christ, and even the seminaries have both national and international aspects to their work.

On the plus side, perhaps there will be a re-examination of the international mission work of our Synod. If that happens, I think there will be some surprises - both positive and negative. I would hope that the positive things that have been happening in international missions would be celebrated and continued. I would also hope that the "fog" that has shrouded our international work would be lifted, so that meaningful dialogue and communication could take place.

Another outcome of the convention is that this website, The Mission Phoenix, will be discontinued in a month or so. With the changes made by the convention, much of the information on this site has become (or is becoming) obselete, and I do not have the time, energy, or insider knowledge of the new structure to make accurate information available. I will make a final post before shutting down the website. In the meantime, What do you think about the new structure?

No shortcuts

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:33:00 -0400

The job of an evangelistic missionary can be summarized in one word: contextualization. For some reason, that word has a bad reputation in some circles. I’m not quite sure why – perhaps it has been used as a catch-all to justify teachings or practices that depart from the Word of God.

But it doen’t deserve a bad reputation. Contextualizing a message means that the message is presented in a way that is understandable to the hearers. Every LCMS pastor in the United States contextualizes the Gospel every time he speaks, because that pastor (presumably) speaks in a language that the hearer can understand. We wouldn’t imagine advocating for a return to Latin in the Divine Service; much less would we attempt to read the Scriptures in Hebrew or in Greek in the public worship (although some scholars might prefer it). The simple fact of the matter is that in order to communicate, the message needs to be comprehensible.

One of the things that sets Christianity apart from other world religions is that the Christian faith is able to be translated. Unlike the Koran, which is only the Koran when it is read in Aramaic, the Bible is the Word of God in every language. Christianity is designed by God to be translated into the languages and the cultures of the people of the world. That’s contextualization.

The incarnation of our Lord is the best example of contextualization – God made Himself understandable to us. He became like us, so that we might understand Him and His love. And that – incarnation – is the task of the evangelistic, cross-cultural missionary. To become so much like the people you serve that you no longer obscure the message, but that you communicate the message at the heart level.

It takes a long time to get to that point – some missionaries never get there at all. It requires the desire to learn; a willingness to put yourself aside; hard work and language study; an ability to appreciate lifeways that are different than your own. And I can tell you this – it doesn’t happen in a year. Or two years. Or even three years. It takes a long time for a person to become fluent enough in both the language and the culture of a people that they can genuinely present a comprehensible (contextualized) Gospel.

Short-term missionary service is a popular option, but there are no shortcuts to effective, cross-cultural missionary work. Contextualization takes time.

Missionary Numbers Shell Game

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:15:00 -0400

I, for one, am completely fed up with the “shell game” that LCMS World Mission is playing with the missionary numbers. LCMS World Mission works very hard to give the impression that we are sending more career missionaries now than ever, even though that is absolutely not true.

The recent headline: “Fan into Flame tops 55.9 million; Funds 29 missionaries” (http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=16788) . The average person will very logically conclude that we now have 29 more missionaries than we had before. The article itself clarifies that 7 of the ‘missionaries’ were placed in the United States. Still, that’s 22 more overseas missionaries. Right?

Wrong. Ablaze! began in 2004. At that time, we had 75 Career Mission Units (households) serving overseas. Today, we have 76 – an increase of ONE, not of 22 (or 29).

I am sure that there is some way to justify the numbers. The thing that comes to mind is this reasoning: 21 missionaries that were overseas were recalled or left since 2004, for whatever reason. If it weren’t for Ablaze!, our numbers would be down by 21. As it is, Ablaze! funding has managed to help us to stay basically even. That may be true, but it does not change the fact that the article is misleading people into thinking that we have more missionaries overseas now than we did before Ablaze! began.

The reason for the missionary number shell game, of course, is money. One highly-placed mission executive once commented to me, “If the people in the pew ever get the idea that we are not sending missionaries, that will be the end.” (See related discussion, “Network- Supported Missionaries” on the Discuss It! page).

LCMS World Mission is in a difficult position because we are transitioning from a denominational support model for missionaries, to a “deputation” model. Most major denominations or mission sending agencies use a deputation model. What that means is that missionaries go and raise their own support before they are deployed. The money raised is sent to the agency for a specific missionary. The agency is responsible for keeping its administrative costs below a certain threshold, generally 10% or less of receipts. Under the depuation model, everyone knows that the sending agency is not providing additional funding – the agency only provides services to the missionaries, not money.

In the LCMS, people in the pew expect the denominational sending agency (LCMS WM) to provide not only support, but also MONEY to pay the missionaries. After all, isn’t that one of the main reasons we are encouraged to support our Synod, so we can send more missionaries? The truth is that only a very small percentage – if any - of the money that people send for Ablaze! or to the Synod is used to support overseas career missionaries. Most career missionaries nowadays actually identify and raise their own support from new donors before going overseas! But if people knew that, they wouldn’t give.

LCMS World Mission needs to come clean and be honest about what is happening with our missionary force – how many missionaries we have, and where their support comes from. The game is up.

Life in New Guinea - the Ebel's Story

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:57:00 -0500

Rev. Alfred and Nancy Ebel served as missionaries in New Guinea from 1968 – 1978. Rev. Ebel taught at Papyulu Lutheran School, Highlands Lutheran School and Balob Teachers College in New Guinea. Here are some of their observations and recollections of their mission service.

What does one do with one hundred 100-watt bulbs that only go “pop” when put in a socket? Fortunately, the bulbs would not even fit in the socket--they were of a bayonette type while ours were screw in. We threw them away in the "hol pipia"--the garbage pit in the back of the house. That was one of our "jolts" to life outside of the USA. Papua New Guinea produced electricity at 220 volts and 50 cycles and we did not have a converter with us.

For five years Nancy was elbow deep in diapers with a wringer washer to help keep clothes and diapers clean. She spent all Monday at that job. It was great that Tide had just come out with soap to be used in cold water. I did not have to heat water for the washing machine. We did not have hot running water, only a pot on the wood stove in the kitchen.

Three children were born in the first five years. Nancy wore recycled maternity clothes for most of those five years. The recycled clothes came from the many other missionary wives and every once in a while a new set was added to the cycle. We bought an Aussie crib. It came from Australia and was new to the mission field. The package came, it came on time, and when the box was opened we found a basket--a US basket is an Aussie crib and we didn't know.

I was called as a teacher and was assigned to Papayuku. We arrived at Papayuku in time for school to start--in January. I was to teach Standard five and be the "headmaster". The school had two other teachers: two seasoned teachers. One for Standard three and one for Standard One who was also the head of the local government Counsel. He had to come from Laiagam every day.

I had 40 students in that first class with 35 males and 5 females. The students ranged in age from 9 to over 20. It was a joy because the students wanted to be there and enjoyed school. Our classroom language was in English since that was the language of the government. Our curriculum was very similar to an American classroom.

My first day in the classroom I tested everything. I tried the maps housed at the front of the room. I pulled the map down and thought the map was very, very wrong. I saw the island of New Guinea in the middle of the map instead of North and South America. It took me awhile to realize that I was in a different country and in very different part of the world.

We enjoyed a weekly Bible Class with attendees from the government in Laiagam and missionaries from the Catholic Church, and the SDA Mission. We shared a Land Rover, had electricity four hours a night, lived with rain almost every day also learned to live with flies, fleas and cockroaches. My parents sent a package once a month besides weekly letters.

We learned about God's providence and His desire for Enga men and women to be part of His church here on earth and in the assembly of saints in heaven. We are very thankful that God called us from Florida to Papua New Guinea. Our World View changed and expanded.

The Squirm Test

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:43:00 -0400

I was serving on some church committee or other, and we were debating whether or not to proceed with a particular course of action. One of the members of the committee, a Lutheran lawyer, opined: “For me, that doesn’t pass the squirm test.” What - I asked - is the squirm test? He said something like this: “If all of the details of this decision became public knowledge, would you be OK with your part in it? Or would it make you squirm?”

It’s a good rule of thumb. Let’s use it to examine the decisions made by the Board for Mission Services regarding the selection of a new executive director. This is a true story, so it may take a while. Ready?

The need to choose a new executive director of LCMS World Mission was precipitated by the surprise resignation the previous director, Bob Roegner. In a press release dated November 12, 2008, Roegner’s resignation was announced with an effective date of November 16, 2008. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14333).

The reasons for Roegner’s sudden resignation were never made public. Roegner’s official statement was nebulous, citing a “desire to return to hands-on ministry”. Speculation as to the reasons for his resignation seem to me to serve no useful purpose. However, the timing of his resignation was certainly fortuitous, as it allowed the BFMS to very quickly name an interim director – Roegner’s resignation was effective on November 16, and the BFMS was scheduled to meet in California November 17 – 19. At that meeting, the BFMS named an interim executive director. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14429).

Roegner’s resignation was seen by many mission obervers as an opportunity to breathe some fresh air into the leadership of LCMS World Mission. No one really felt compelled to dig into the reasons behind Roegner’s resignation. Even though it appeared that the date of the resignation was orchestrated to coincide with the BFMS meeting, no one found fault with that (myself included). The BFMS was simply being efficient.

When an executive-level position in Synod needs to be filled, there is a certain procedure that needs to be followed. The procedure is usually detailed in the relevant policy manual of the particular board or organization. Since I do not have a copy of the BFMS policy manual, I do not know what the particular procedure in this case would be. In general terms, however, the procedure is usually something like this:

1) general call for nominations

2) development of a list of candidates by the Board

3) vetting of the list by the president of Synod, during which time he may add or remove names.

4) interview of the top candidates(usually 3 – 5) by the Board

5) discussion of interview data by the Board, followed by a vote

6) presentation of results of voting; followed by the issue of a call to the leading candidate.

7) acceptance / rejection of the call by the callee

Things appeared to be proceeding normally. In January 2009, the Synod issued a general call for nominations to fill the position. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=14759). Names were to be submitted by January 31. Later on, in April 2009, I received a communication from the BFMS which indicated that 15 nominations had been received, and that the quality of the nominees was superlative.

Then the surprise! At the April 15 meeting of the BFMS, the decision was made to call the interim director, as the executive director! According to the press release, the Board’s action “removes the “interim” title from (the new director’s) position and serves as an endorsement of his continuing leadership of LCMS World Mission.”

Why was this a surprise? It was a surprise because the BFMS had not yet interviewed EVEN ONE of the 15 other nominees! The selection process was aborted before it had really even gotten underway.

This is problematic on a number of levels. First, there is a possible breach of procedure. However, without access to the BFMS policy manual, one cannot be sure whether or not the Board is required to interview potential candidates.

Second and more importantly, the general selection and interview process necessarily exposes Board members to differing perspectives on our Synod’s mission work. This is often a time of critical reflection and analysis of the current direction of the work.

As an interesting parallel, the Synod’s director of Human Resources position was also vacant at this time. In the May 2009 minutes of the synodical Board of Directors, this comment was made:

“As interim Human Resources Executive Director, the CAO also reported that the executive director vacancy is being used as an opportunity to evaluate the Synod’s human resource department and programs. ... Areas requiring improvement have been identified... These needs will be taken into consideration when filling the vacancy.”

This is normal procedure when an executive director position is vacated. By not interviewing the nominees, the members of the BFMS were not exposed to differing perspectives and could not have engaged in the kind of critical reflection that the situation would seem to warrant.

As a nominee, I expressed my concerns to the Synod’s human resources department. I did not receive a direct reply. However, in relatively short order, I received a letter from Butch Almsted, BFMS chair, which was directed to all of the nominees. The letter explained that their decision to abandon the executive director search was motivated by two primary concerns: 1) the proven leadership abilities of the person chosen; and 2) the possible structural changes of the Synod’s program boards in the 2010 convention. This further explanation was then added to the Synod’s press release (see portion underlined, and in red at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15126).

This “clarification” left me more muddled than before. If the program boards are up in the air until 2010, wouldn’t it be better to leave an interim director and not name a permanent director at all?

I continued in my muddled state until the Synod’s Board of Directors released the minutes of their May 2009 meeting. Buried on pages 143 - 144 is this tidbit:

“Following the adoption of the budget, the following resolution was introduced and adopted:

Resolved, That because of the work of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance, the Board of Directors take seriously its responsibilities and authority under Bylaws 3.3.5.3 and 3.3.5.5 (a) should steps be taken by program boards to fill vacant executive director positions at this time.

The Chief Administrative Officer was instructed to take this board action to any boards showing interest in filling executive director positions at this time.”

(http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Board_Of_Directors/0905%20BOD%20Minutes.pdf)

The picture becomes clearer. Either the timing was incredibly providential, or someone on the BFMS suspected (or was tipped) that the Board of Directors would be considering this action. Since the BFMS meeting was scheduled one month before the BOD meeting, there was a window of opportunity to fill the LCMS World Mission executive director position before the BOD directive became a reality.

But on further reflection, this also raises some disturbing considerations. Why was it so important to remove the word “interim” from the title? What can a permanent executive director do, that an interim executive director cannot do? Wouldn’t it make more sense to leave the position as an “interim”? Or is the BFMS worried about something else? Are they concerned about safeguarding the current leadership and direction of LCMS World Mission? Are they worried that someone new might want to move things in a new direction? What is really going on here?

I do not know the current executive director of LCMS World Mission. People whom I respect say he is a great man and a gifted leader, and I do not doubt that for a minute. Perhaps this really was God moving, and the right man was chosen at the right time. This blog isn’t about the person who was chosen. It’s about the decision-making process of the Board that selected him.

You be the judge – does it pass the squirm test?

He cares for you

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:52:00 -0400

Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. – I Peter 5:7

God is interested in your well-being. Did you ever think of that? He is. He wants you to be healthy, free from worry, confident about the future, and in good spirits. He wants your marriage to be wonderful, your children to be a blessing to you, and your single-ness to be satisfying. If you are not well – spiritually, emotionally, physically, mentally – God is concerned about that.

Missionaries tend to measure everything by another one of God’s deep concerns – the salvation of the lost through faith in Jesus Christ. No doubt, that’s the biggie. But think of this: How many times in the Bible are we told to pray for one another? How many examples does God give us of people who were concerned for each other’s well-being? How often are we told to not be anxious? To not be afraid?

The Bible isn’t just providing us with an idea of how other Christians did it. This is the inspired Word of God, here. God is speaking to us through that Word. The reason for all of those kinds of passages is that God is concerned for your well-being. After all, Christ emptied Himself for you. He sacrificed His well-being for yours. He was thinking of you, quite specifically, when He gave His life on the cross.

Sometimes we feel like we are alone – serving others can be a lonely task. Sometimes we are convinced that no one really remembers us or cares about us. But that’s not true. SomeOne does. It’s OK to take a break for a while, to laugh, to play, to step away from the duties that beckon. I know that God is concerned about the lost. But He’s also concerned about losing YOU.

For Missionaries Only

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:04:00 -0400

"What do you think of LCMS World Mission?"

Don't you find that to be a hard question to answer? I know I do. I think that most LCMS missionaries have a love/hate relationship with our denominational mission organization. It goes with the territory.

The way a missionary feels about their sending agency has a lot to do with the reason why a missionary goes overseas in the first place. Missionaries don't go overseas because they love pain. And it's not that they necessarily love feeling like a "fish out of water", living and operating in a culture that is sometimes incomprehensible. A lot of missionaries don't even love adventure.

There are two reasons why missionaries go overseas. First, missionaries love Jesus. Second, missionaries love the people whom they are called to serve. That's why we go - so that these people who we love can get introduced to this Jesus who we love.

That overwhelming love extends to the agency and the people who make overseas service possible. We love LCMS World Mission because without it, we probably would never have had the chance to live among these people, to get to know them, to laugh and cry with them, and to share our Lord Jesus with them. How can you not love the people (LCMS congregations and members included) who make it all possible?

But then, there are the frustrations. Inexplicable decisions made far away from your place of service. People who only listen to half of the story. A promising work that is ended just as it started to get going. Missionaries removed from their place of service. Peripheral work that ends up consuming too much valuable ministry time. I could go on, but you know what I mean. Those are the kinds of things that make it hard to love our mission program.

So as a missionary, you are in a tough spot. Every LCMS missionary lives with this same tension - you want to complain, but if you complain too loudly, then you may be removed from the people you love. Then again, you don't really want to complain, because after all, you are doing what you love to do. You would like to vent some frustrations, but if you vent too much, you may jeapordize your future service. But on the other hand, some things just need to change. Period.

I understand: you just want to stay in the game, and LCMS World Mission is the only game in town. There's only one way to be an LCMS missionary, and that's through LCMS World Mission. The love / hate relationship continues; you put up with the frustrations, and you share the joys, and you pray to God that someone, sometime, will get it right.

I know this because I've lived it. But I also know it because you've told me. A surprising number of missionaries and former missionaries vent in my direction. Not because I can do anything about it, because I can't, but (I think) because I'll at least listen. And I'll hold you in my heart, and pray for you.

I get it: you just want to be a missionary.

Rev. David Ernst' Story

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:08:00 -0400

The following is a portion of a post by David Ernst in the "General Discussion", "Should we still be sending missionaries overseas?" David Ernst arrived in Venezuela as a volunteer missionary. He is now an ordained pastor of the Lutheran Church of Venezuela and lives and works in Venezuela. See his blog at: http://venezuelaview.blogspot.com

"One of the reasons I volunteered to serve in Venezuela in the first place was because there was a large team of experienced career missionaries already in place. What a rude shock I received when nearly the whole team was recalled during my first year in this country! Not only that, but since 2003, the Board for Mission Services has steadily dismantled any remaining support system even for the shortest-term volunteers.

The justification for this seems to be "We have done our job in Venezuela and it is now up to the national church (Lutheran Church of Venezuela) to train and send its own missionaries." This is shortsighted, because although LCMS missionaries set up a system of theological education by extension that is capable of providing a grounding in basic doctrine, political, economic and cultural conditions in Venezuela make it difficult for the LCV to find enough pastoral candidates to fill existing pulpits, much less train and send missionaries.

And there still is very little in the way of cross-cultural training. Venezuela has quite a diverse population. For instance, there is a substantial population of ethnic Chinese who retain their own language, customs and the traditional religious mix of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

There is also a growing Muslim presence in Venezuela. It started years ago with immigration due to Venezuela's involvement with OPEC, but recently the Muslims have won more and more converts among "average" Venezuelans. I know of at least two large mosques and one small neighborhood mosque in the eastern Venezuelan city of San Felix de Guayana. The central mosque in Caracas has a minaret that, by design, reaches higher the spire of the Caracas cathedral (the largest Christian church in Venezuela in terms of physical size).

On the other side of the coin, there is a population of native Middle Eastern Christians who have emigrated to Venezuela in the face of Muslim persecution in their homelands. Plus, there is a significant Jewish community in Venezuela that recently has come under attack here as the tide of world opinion turns against Israel. Those are just some of the subcultures that I can think of offhand, but no one currently associated with the LCV has specific training in evangelizing these groups.

The recently-deceased Dr. Ralph Winter in 2007 spoke before an Asian mission conference and said, among other things, that one mistake that mission agencies should avoid is basing their mission strategy on short-term volunteers, rather than career missionaries. According to Dr. Winter, nearly two million short-termers leave the United States each year compared to 35,000 long-term missionaries. I believe Dr. Winter would agree that short-term mission trips have some value in educating the folks back home about world missions. But that value hinges on one of two responses by the persons involved:

1. Considering a change of career and entering the mission field full-time oneself:

2. A renewed commitment to supporting career missionaries financially and with prayer once one returns home.

Here is a link to an article about Dr. Winter's address:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071105/top-12-mistakes-mission-agencies-should-avoid/page2.html

It is simply a fact that churches in the United States still have an advantage over partner churches in other countries in training and sending missionaries, because of a stronger economy, more educational resources, and, above all, a higher degree of religious liberty."

The Untold Story

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:44:00 -0400

Everyone loves a good missionary story. Heck, I love a good missionary story, and I've lived dozens of them! The story we love to hear is the one where the precious Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ is shared with someone who - in all likelihood - would never have heard that old, old story if the missionary had never come. If we, as the Church, had not sent that person. If we had not supported him or her. We love the missionary story, because we - all of us - have a part in it.

There's another story that every missionary has. I know it, because I have it, too. Call it, the untold story. This is the one about the person who - in all likelihood - was lost to the kingdom because the missionary came. The one we offended, usually unintentionally. The situation we did not handle in a culturally-appropriate way. The time when we did not understand the seriousness of the situation. The uncrossable boundary that was crossed in ignorance.

We come to a people as outsiders. We need to learn their language, like a child. We don't always understand the reasons why people do what they do, or say what they say. We try, but we sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes our language or cultural ignorance creates a barrier to the Gospel. And sometimes, that barrier keeps people out of the kingdom.

Those stories aren't as fun to tell. And they aren't as fun to hear. They don't seem to be the kind of thing that encourages supporters. So they often go untold, and we missionaries carry the burden of the untold story - for the rest of our lives. "God help us," we sigh. "Lord, forgive me. I didn't know."

For every good missionary story, there's an untold story. I know. I have dozens of them - and I live with them, every day. "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner."

Why I am no longer a missionary

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:56:00 -0400

As I mentioned in the "Who I Am" page, I served as an evangelistic missionary to Venezuela from 1988 - 2001. It was my intention to continue serving as a missionary until God called me home. In 2000, I accepted the call to serve as LCMS WM Area Director for Venezuela and the Caribbean. At that time, Dr. Glenn OShoney was the executive director of LCMS WM, and he spearheaded a reorganizion of LCMS World Mission. The idea was to decentralize missions - to move decision-making out of St. Louis and closer to the "field", where regionally-based leaders who really understand what is going on could exercise regional authority. A key component was the regional leadership. OShoney's idea was to increase the deployed leaders, and decrease the St. Louis staff. So, there was supposed to be 12 Area Directors scattered around the globe, although I don't think all of the positions were ever simultaneously filled.

This idea created some tension between the Area Directors and the St. Louis staff. Naturally, the St. Louis staff felt threatened - their authority was being reduced and their job were being changed from decision-makers to support staff. After Glenn O'Shoney retired, the tension between the Area Directors and the St. Louis staff continued to increase. Some of the St. Louis staff were extremely reluctant to allow the ADs to be making the decisions. When Bob Roegner came on board as executive director, he came into a hornet's nest. He had to make a decision, and he decided in favor of the staff and against the decentralizing concept. He announced that the world areas would again be reduced to 4, but that all of us area directors would be considered for one of the new "regional director" positions. He also said that he was going to solicit the input of our partner churches for filling the regional director positions. (see "Documents" page for official news release - October 30 2003).

The partner churches in Latin America were consulted. They proposed 3 names and three names only for the director of the Latin America region: Rev. Dr. Douglas Rutt, Rev. James Tino, and Rev. Greg Klotz. One of our partner church presidents in Latin America sent a letter to LCMS WM leaders to reiterate their decision. In part, the letter said:

"In the last meeting of the ILC at Iguazu Falls (Brazil), we had the opportunity to present a list of nominees, by acclamation of all of the participating churches in the region. This list was headed by Douglas Rutt, then James Tino and Gregory Klotz. The list was in order...

For these reasons, we request that our list of nominees delivered at Iguazu Falls be taken into consideration." (The complete letter is on file in my office. I have chosen not to reproduce it here because the letter was not addressed to me; I was cc'd as a courtesy since my name was mentioned in the letter.)

My "interview" consisted of the following: Dave Birner (then the newly-appointed associate executive director for world areas) called me on my cell phone and said that LCMS WM was going to go in the direction of Ablaze, and was going to de-emphasize church planting. He asked how I felt about that. I replied that I believed the role of LCMS WM was (and is) to send cross-cultural, evangelistic, church-planting missionaries. The phone call ended, and a few months later I got my severance papers to sign from LCMS Human Resources.

Greg Klotz was never interviewed. Doug Rutt was offered a phone interview. The person who was called to the position, Dr. Jorge Groh, was not a nominee of our partner churches.

The reason I am not a missionary today is because I wanted to send LCMS missionaries overseas to preach the Gospel and plant churches, plain and simple. Any assertation to the contrary is just plain false.