It is absurdly ironic that anyone would contend that Dr. Schulz’s decision is “based upon the Scripture, Confessions, and Constitution of Synod,” when none of the conclusions of his report demonstrate a careful, or even brief, exposition of Scriptural or confessional evidence to explicate Dr. Schulz’s reasoning.  His report rises to the level of the ludicrous when he hopes that his conclusions “are clearly perceived by the greater church to flow naturally from the pure and true Word and will of God” and then refuses to cite the very written Word of God in any of his indictments.

                       This controversy is embarrassing on so many levels.  Yet, perhaps the most revealing embarrassment is that this church  official’s statement lacks theological substance, scholarship, or sophistication.  This fact is particularly unflattering in  light of the great pains Dr. Benke (whose doctorate is earned rather than honorary) has taken to clarify and substantiate his actions with conscientious argumentation based upon justifiable interpretations of Scripture, the Lutheran confessions, and the official documents of our Synod.  One may disagree or argue with Dr. Benke’s interpretations, but for fruitful dialogue and discernment to take place one must at least engage them.  Dr. Schulz’s report does not pay the “greater church” the  simple courtesy of engaging Dr. Benke’s arguments, following sound principles of deliberation and argumentation.  In  substance, Dr. Schulz’s report contains only crude declarations which provide the reader with no verifiable evidence or clarification.  The report contains only one quotation from the Book of Concord (Luther’s Large Catechism) and NO references from Scripture that directly relate to his adjudicatory decisions.

                       If Dr. Schulz wants to assert that his decisions are constructed “on the basis of God's revealed will” and that his report is “a call to return to the practice of Bible-based historic Christianity,” he obligates himself to demonstrate his conclusions with primary evidence as such.  This is the first composition lesson every undergraduate learns in English 101. The fact that he does not fulfill his obligation only serves to advance the apparent and reasonable perception that his decisions are based on bias, partiality, and predisposed opinion.  Without evidence to the contrary, this controversy goes beyond embarrassment.  It is a travesty.

                       Name withheld by request

                       A member of Concordia Lutheran Church, Kirkwood, MO