So ... the official "explanation" for the Issues, Etc. cancellation is out. You can find it at www.kfuoam.org, but be ready to wait for your browser to load it. I'm guessing that lots and lots of folks are trying to read the statement for themselves and even check out the restored Issues, Etc. archives. (More on that in a moment.) But you needn't try to access the archives at www.issuesetc.org; you'll only get a message saying "Issues Etc. is no longer available." (Yep, still sad reality!)Since you may not want to wait for kfuoam.org to load, here's the "explanation":
For programmatic and business reasons, the decision was made this week to discontinue the "Issues, Etc." program on KFUO-AM. We look forward to bringing you new programming in this time slot in the near future. Also, we thank "Issues" host Rev. Todd Wilken and producer Mr. Jeff Schwarz for their years of service on behalf of the station. Those interested may still download past "Issues, Etc." programs from the "Issues" archive on this website. Thank you sincerely for your continued support of KFUO's radio ministry.This "answer" only leads to more questions.
- Do we really get an explanation/answer? (I think not. Just a good dose of "bureaucratese")
- What kinds of "programmatic and business reasons" could possibly lead to canceling what I'm positive was the most popular, most listened to, and most financially successful program on KFUO-AM? (I believe someone commented on Pr. Weedon's blog, and based on actual meeting minutes, that KFUO-AM's finances were actually improving)
- Why hide behind the limp-wristed language of "the decision was made"? By whom? Who's man enough to own up to it - that is, if it were truly a "right decision"?
- What kind of "new programming" can possibly compare to the great, Christ-centered, Gospel-focused, rubber-hits-the-road training in apologetics and evangelism heard on Issues, Etc.? (After all, the art had already been honed, the skills had already been polished, the guests had been proven. Now the "new programming" will have to start from scratch and earn its way into peoples hearts and minds.)
- Will support of KFUO's "radio ministry" truly continue - by the LCMS? by listeners, that is, in the same way that they supported Issues, Etc.?
And now to the comment about the slowness of KFUO's website. Could that reveal a whole host of people nationwide, and even around the globe, trying access what remains of Issues, Etc., people who are interested and concerned now that Issues, Etc. has been silenced? Could it be that more people actually listened to Issues, Etc. than was presumed leading up to this infamous cancellation? Could it be that the powers that be "misunderestimated" (Thank you, Pres. Bush, for coining that term ;-) the scope of their decision? Let's hope so!
I suspect that David Strand and the communications folks at the LCMS International Center are monitoring blogs such as this. In fact, I hope so. So, Mr. Strand, would you do us the kindness of answering the real, ongoing questions with real, satisfactory answers? I know I would appreciate it, and I'm sure many, many others would too.
4 comments:
It's just sad the way the synod has handled this matter. I would certainly expect Ted Turner to do something so underhanded and then leave the audience with a run of the mill statement, but Christians? I suppose the same poison that flows within the veins of non-christian media tycoons flows within us also (Old Adam).
I think a bigger question is when will Pastor Wilken and Mr. Schwarz be allowed or willing to speak out and provide clarification?
I believe that they are considering a severance package that has a "gag order" connected to it. I'm told by a good authority that they are seeking legal counsel regarding this as well.
I do know that Pr. Wilken wants to do things in a most Christian and most pastoral way. So, while the LCMS certainly is not giving a good Christian witness, Pr. Wilken surely will.
That's also why I've been urging calmness and heads cooled by our Lord's example and our Lord's teaching. LCMS bureaucrats may rank right up there with Ted Turner, but we don't have to. We can "fight this thing" Christianly, if you will. That is, we can address this infamous wrong with Christian patience and charity. We can certainly rely on our Lord Himself to work justice. After all, I'm sure there's more going on - on the good side, that is - in this matter than you or I are privy to.
It seems to me that if, as you say, this was a "right decision", and if the decision-maker truly believes in his own heart that it is a "right decision", there should be no reason not to own up to it and clearly state it.
Hi, Diana,
Yes, that's exactly why I worded that statement the way I did. "If it were truly a 'right decision' is a contrary-to-fact statement. Of course, we know that this decision is not a "right one," and hence we get the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that says absolutely nothing. No wonder folks don't want to own up to things - it's not a "right (just) decision."
Post a Comment