LCMS sues Oakland CA congregation for property #2

[RadMan]

I'm with DaRev on this one. Let's be patient until everything is fully known.

And may I also say let's try to remember to address one another with love and respect.

Always good advice but............the longer people "sit back and let things unravel" the longer the opposition has in advocating and forwarding their efforts and position. Lutherans are very forgiving and forgetful and that is what GK is hoping for that the saying "time heals all wounds" will help him get his agenda across. It has already helped him tremendously. There is no conserted front to oppose him on any of his controversial issues that he's done so far. I've posted enormous amounts of info on his abuse the last few years on this site and all the people have done on here is ignore it. GK has flagrant advantage of this and has total control over the administrative boards. And the ones that disagree with him are afraid to talk up except for a small few and they don't have many places to air their views since GK and his Jesus First and Daystar have control of the media. The only ones that WILL talk out are the ones outside the control of media and that is Cascione and Herman Otten with Christian News. Some people may not agree with them but that is the only source that is available against the media black out. There are forums like "John the Steadfast" that have good info also. Very good source for the Conservative/Confessional. Here's the link.

The Brothers of John the Steadfast

 

[Tangible]

I get regular updates from the BJS in my google reader, along with several other similar sites and blogs. I listen to Issues, Etc. almost every afternoon at work.

My problem is, I haven't been around very long at all, and I'm trying to find my way through. I don't know exactly what media blackout you're meaning, but I find it very easy to find vast amounts of anti-GK viewpoints with a click or two of the mouse. What has proven very illusive to me, in fact, are any viewpoints that come from the other direction.

While I've never heard them specifically praise or defend GK or the current leadership specifically, my pastors and elders are not in the actively anti-GK camp, and FWIW my senior pastor is locally known for consistently promoting outreach and personal evangelism in our church and our region long before Ablaze or anything like that existed.

While I am definitely in the anti-Church Growth Movement, seeker-sensitive, contemporary worship camp, I see absolutely nothing wrong with reaching out to educate, invite, and welcome those who are not Christians, new Christians, and Christians who are unsatisfied with their current church or theology into the warm embrace of God to be found in Confessional Lutheranism in general and the LCMS in particular.

Matt Harrison, who is almost the universal favorite candidate for president from the anti-GK camp, impresses me greatly. He seems to stand firmly for conservative, historical, Confessional Lutheranism, yet does so with a gentle, informed, and genuinely loving manner. (And also the facts that he has worked in Africa and plays the banjo.) If it were up to me, he could lead my synod any time. I sincerely hope that he and leaders like him will form the future leadership of the LCMS because I believe their hearts are in the right place.

What I don't see Harrison doing is engaging in blustery, accusatory rhetoric that threatens to further divide and alienate many in the LCMS. Unfortunately, many of those that support him for president seem to be all fangs and no fur. I'm concerned that Harrison will be tarred with the same brush, and hindered by his association with these people by those in the other camp who would resist moving away from the direction of GK's leadership.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

No reason to discuss it.

 

[DaRev]

Tell me the errors. Or we to take it that you are just too busy to be bothered? Or you just really, unable?

Have you read post #33? Much of it is there.

 

[DaRev]

Always good advice but............the longer people "sit back and let things unravel" the longer the opposition has in advocating and forwarding their efforts and position. Lutherans are very forgiving and forgetful and that is what GK is hoping for that the saying "time heals all wounds" will help him get his agenda across. It has already helped him tremendously. There is no conserted front to oppose him on any of his controversial issues that he's done so far. I've posted enormous amounts of info on his abuse the last few years on this site and all the people have done on here is ignore it. GK has flagrant advantage of this and has total control over the administrative boards. And the ones that disagree with him are afraid to talk up except for a small few and they don't have many places to air their views since GK and his Jesus First and Daystar have control of the media. The only ones that WILL talk out are the ones outside the control of media and that is Cascione and Herman Otten with Christian News. Some people may not agree with them but that is the only source that is available against the media black out. There are forums like "John the Steadfast" that have good info also. Very good source for the Conservative/Confessional. Here's the link.

The Brothers of John the Steadfast

The problem is that both Otten and Cascione have their own agendas. Both have axes to grind. Their credibility is severely lacking.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

The problem is that both Otten and Cascione have their own agendas. Both have axes to grind. Their credibility is severely lacking.

Post #33 stands on GK's special agenda and whether or not you can believe him. I have shown from Bod Policy that it is not possible for him to not know. Bet he knows NOW, so he needs to give us all an update. How long will that take? The longer he takes, it makes post #33 that much more incredible to believe.

I hope you are casting your hopes wisely.

If the lack of credibility you have towards J and O is driving your faith in GK, wow, that is really.....amazing. But it is not Cascione's agenda driving Missouri.

Peace,

Cos

 

[DaRev]

Post #33 stands on GK's special agenda and whether or not you can believe him. I have shown from Bod Policy that it is not possible for him to not know. Bet he knows NOW, so he needs to give us all an update. How long will that take? The longer he takes, it makes post #33 that much more incredible to believe.

I hope you are casting your hopes wisely.

If the lack of credibility you have towards J and O is driving your faith in GK, wow, that is really.....amazing. But it is not Cascione's agenda driving Missouri.

Peace,

Cos

You, like Radman, seem to assume that if I don't buy everything that Otten and Cascione pitches hook, line, and sinker like you do, then I MUST be an "Ablaze, JesusFirst, GK disciple". Nothing could be further from the truth.

When someone says something that isn't true, it can only be one of two things. Either they don't know what they're saying isn't true, in which case they are ignorant; or they do know what they're saying isn't true, in which case they are a liar.
In this thread was posted the beginning of the suit which names the petitioners and defendants. No where in that does it say that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is named as a petitioner. It simply doesn't say that. It says "California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" which is the district's legal name. The synod isn't suing those four ladies. Other members of that congregation along with the district are named as petitioners. It is not necessary for the district to inform the synod president in such matters, so when GK said he wasn't aware when it was filed, that isn't out of the ordinary.
Otten and Cascione both conrtinually state that the LCMS is suing these four ladies, but they know that isn't true. The suit does not list the synod as a petitioner. Also, they continue to claim that GK knew nothing about it. The truth is that GK said he was unaware it was filed, not that he knew nothing about it. Otten and Cascione have purposely misrepresented the known facts of this issue. Anyone who can read knows this. They have no credibility in this matter.

As for GK giving an "update", he is not a party to the matter so he is not obligated. I agree that it would be nice to hear something official from the synod since this issue has been blown so out of proportion.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

This same old song and dance routine was played out over the lawsuit with Issues, Etc.

You be the judge. Oh, and no Cascione in sight, hmmmmmm.

MEMO
To: LCMS Council of Presidents
From: Gerald B. Kieschnick
Subject: Issues, Etc.
Date: February 26, 2009


Dear Brothers in Christ:

Grace and peace be with you, from God our Father and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

In order to assist you in responding to inquiries and/or rumors about my involvement in an alleged lawsuit involving “Issues, Etc.,” I am providing this memo, which you may share as you deem appropriate.

As indicated during our Council of Presidents discussion of that topic earlier this week, contrary to allegations and rumors you and I have recently received, I have not filed, initiated, supported, or encouraged any lawsuit against Rev. Todd Wilken or Mr. Jeff Schwarz, nor have I ever had a desire to do so. Any allegations or rumors to the contrary are simply untrue. As an individual Christian, as a Lutheran pastor, and as President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, I take seriously the Holy Spirit-inspired words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 regarding such matters.

Furthermore, the LCMS Board of Directors has not filed a lawsuit against these brothers in Christ and in fact has taken action that effectively ends any and all legal considerations regarding this matter and is designed to restore relationships with them through fraternal conversation, mutual respect, and genuine humility. A communication from the Board with additional information about this matter will be forthcoming.

It is my prayer that this memo will be helpful to you in responding to anyone in your district who has expressed concern regarding this issue. I know you join me in prayer that it will be resolved under the leading, guiding, and directing of God’s Holy Spirit.

The peace of the Lord be with you all!


Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

“Transforming lives through Christ’s love … in time … for eternity …” John 3:16-17

C: LCMS Board of Directors

Word games from the word player.


"This memo sadly squares with what President Kieschnick did at the Southern Illinois convention. He took a screened question (more on that below) about the trademark issue and then spoke dramatically about a scenario that was make believe. “There is no lawsuit, never was a lawsuit, there never will be a lawsuit, I wouldn’t wish a lawsuit on anybody” he exclaimed. No one ever claimed there was a lawsuit. What was claimed is what is described above: a threat to take further action by lawyers (we call that “legal action” in our common parlance). President Kieschnick is twisting language for his advantage."
(Taken from Pastor Rossow's comments on the Issues, Etc. action)


I think most could draw parallels here between the two legal actions. It takes a lot of sand to say you don't.

This will be a growing trend of how LCMS handles its "problems". It is a glimpse into how it handles the rest of its "affairs".

2010 should be an interesting year for the non-LCMS lawsuit and the Convention that will try to square truth and reality once again.


Good luck,


Cos

 

[DaRev]

 

[Studeclunker]

Cos, when posting a quotation, one must enlarge the font manually within that quote. If not, people like myself CAN'T READ IT! Or I end up getting a headache trying. Ahem, sorry, end of rant.:o One more thing. When making a quotation, we should leave our own comments out of the quote framework. That way our own words aren't incorrectly attributed to the person or persons quoted. I believe the second half of this is your own comments?

for those who, like myself, have trouble with those tiny fonts:

This same old song and dance routine was played out over the lawsuit with Issues, Etc.

You be the judge. Oh, and no Cascione in sight, hmmmmmm.

MEMO
To: LCMS Council of Presidents
From: Gerald B. Kieschnick
Subject: Issues, Etc.
Date: February 26, 2009


Dear Brothers in Christ:

Grace and peace be with you, from God our Father and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

In order to assist you in responding to inquiries and/or rumors about my involvement in an alleged lawsuit involving “Issues, Etc.,” I am providing this memo, which you may share as you deem appropriate.

As indicated during our Council of Presidents discussion of that topic earlier this week, contrary to allegations and rumors you and I have recently received, I have not filed, initiated, supported, or encouraged any lawsuit against Rev. Todd Wilken or Mr. Jeff Schwarz, nor have I ever had a desire to do so. Any allegations or rumors to the contrary are simply untrue. As an individual Christian, as a Lutheran pastor, and as President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, I take seriously the Holy Spirit-inspired words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 regarding such matters.

Furthermore, the LCMS Board of Directors has not filed a lawsuit against these brothers in Christ and in fact has taken action that effectively ends any and all legal considerations regarding this matter and is designed to restore relationships with them through fraternal conversation, mutual respect, and genuine humility. A communication from the Board with additional information about this matter will be forthcoming.

It is my prayer that this memo will be helpful to you in responding to anyone in your district who has expressed concern regarding this issue. I know you join me in prayer that it will be resolved under the leading, guiding, and directing of God’s Holy Spirit.

The peace of the Lord be with you all!


Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

“Transforming lives through Christ’s love … in time … for eternity …” John 3:16-17

C: LCMS Board of Directors

Word games from the word player.

"This memo sadly squares with what President Kieschnick did at the Southern Illinois convention. He took a screened question (more on that below) about the trademark issue and then spoke dramatically about a scenario that was make believe. “There is no lawsuit, never was a lawsuit, there never will be a lawsuit, I wouldn’t wish a lawsuit on anybody” he exclaimed. No one ever claimed there was a lawsuit. What was claimed is what is described above: a threat to take further action by lawyers (we call that “legal action” in our common parlance). President Kieschnick is twisting language for his advantage."
(Taken from Pastor Rossow's comments on the Issues, Etc. action)


I think most could draw parallels here between the two legal actions. It takes a lot of sand to say you don't.

This will be a growing trend of how LCMS handles its "problems". It is a glimpse into how it handles the rest of its "affairs".

2010 should be an interesting year for the non-LCMS lawsuit and the Convention that will try to square truth and reality once again.


Good luck,


Cos

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Cos, when posting a quotation, one must enlarge the font manually within that quote. If not, people like myself CAN'T READ IT! Or I end up getting a headache trying. Ahem, sorry, end of rant.:o One more thing. When making a quotation, we should leave our own comments out of the quote framework. That way our own words aren't incorrectly attributed to the person or persons quoted. I believe the second half of this is your own comments?

for those who, like myself, have trouble with those tiny fonts:

[/size][/font]

Huh? Does not compute.

Sorry.

 

[Studeclunker]

Revrand, you keep saying that the LCMS isn't involved. However, "The California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod," is named as a party to the litigants. The rules of the LCMS state that the local district is the LCMS personified. Therefore the entire Synod is involved. One cannot divorce any part of the Synod from another as we are, as my Father used to say, "holding hands under the blanket." I don't like quoting my own posts, but you don't seem to have registered the last time or the evidence posted in this venue, so here we are:

Yes, I'm having a bit of trouble with the one-sidedness of this issue myself, Porter. However, as to hear-say, all news articles are of this nature. While I don't agree or approve some of the invective and retoric that the Rev. Cascione employs, what would be his incentive of putting himself in legal jepordy by lying about the LCMS's leadership's involvement here?

At this point, I should point out that Rad edited the post of the latest Reclaim News. It was quite a bit longer and included the following:

The front page of the suit reads as follows:
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Elizabeth Stone (Bar No. 239285)
Three Embarcadero Center , 24th Floor
San Francisco , CA 94111
Tel: 415.733.6000
Fax 415.677.9041

THOMPSON COBURN LLP
Sherri C. Strand (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Timothy F. Noelker (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis , MO 63101
Tel: 314.552.6000
Fax: 314.552-7000

Attorney for Plaintiffs
​

Well, at this point we can be sure that Sherri C. Strand (The LCMS' attorney) is involved here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STARTE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUTY OF ALAMEDA

RON LEE, NAOMI GATZKE, JOSEPH THOMPSON, JR., MIRIAM THOMPSON, OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH, a not-for-profit religious corporation, and THE CALIFORNIA-NEVADA- HAWAII DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOUR SYNOD, a not-for-profit religious corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHARON BOWELS, MARY-ANN HILL, PORTIA RIDGEWAY, and CELIA MOYER,
Defendants.

​

Okay, so the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Chruch -- Missouri Synod is involved.

I hope you'll forgive my editing out the retoric and invective from this:

Of course, some of the ...District Presidents and Circuit Counselors will tell everyone that a District of the LCMS is not the LCMS. But then ... the Synodical Handbook which says:
LCMS Handbook 2004
Bylaws of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
1.3.2 Districts and circuits are included among the component parts of the Synod. p.24
4. District Organization. p.187
4.1.1.1 A district is the Synod itself performing the functions of the Synod. p. 187
4.1.6 The relationship of a congregation to the district is the same the relationship of the congregation to the Synod and as defined in Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod and Bylaw sections 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8. p.188
​

All right. So, we know here from the preamble of the lawsuit's docmuments, and the Synodical organization's bylaws, that the LCMS is indeed involved here. My question from all of this is; Is Kieschnick lying or is he indeed so out of touch with what's going on in the Synod that something like this would slip by him? If the former: then Rev. Cascione's invective and retoric is entirely true. If the latter; than what Rev. Cascione says is only partly true and Rev. Kieschnick is incompetant. I don't know which is worse!

So, we can see that the local district (and by association the whole Synod) is listed as a plaintiff. Therefore, since that local district represents the Synod as a whole, then the entire Synod is suing these women for ownership of their congregational property. I wonder what Walther would have to say about twenty percent of a congregation attempting to overthrow the congregational polity of the whole? This has nothing whatever to do with doctrine, theology, or doxology. I has to do with property rights and money, nothing else. Like the rest of our Synod, a small minority seems to be attempting to overthrow the majority. The evidence given shows this church fight seems to have been going on for some time. Hence the shrinking of the congregation. Two sides have squared up against each other and now it has led to this lawsuit. The worst part of it, is the involvement of the D.P. in attempting to FORCE the congregation to dis-band! Something he has no moral, legal, or ecclesiastical right to do. What he does have a right/responsibility to do, is to heal the division and set the congregation back onto the path of it's mission, ie: Preaching and teaching the word of God and community envangelism.

Now, one more thing needs to be pointed out here. Sherri Strand is not allowed to practice law in the State of California. Her license is likely limited to the State of Missouri. In fact, very few attorneys do practice outside their own state. That's why she's designated, "Pro Hac Vice," That is to say, associate attorney. She is most certainly involved. Up to her eyeballs, as they say.

 

[DaRev]

What you all are not understanding is that the suit was not initiated by the Synod proper, nor is the Synod proper involved directly. The suit is between the actual congregation and the four mentioned women who represent a faction that has voted to leave the synod but has retained the building and property. It is common practice found in most all congregational bylaws that if a congregation splits, the party that is still faithful to to Synod retains the rights to the property, regardless of the number. It's not a "majority rules" situation. In this case, the dissenting party has possession of the property. That is the basis of the suit. The dissenting party, those who have left the Synod, refuse to give the property back to the rightful owner, that being the congregation that is still a member of the Synod, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church.

While the district may represent the Synod, it is the district that is responsible for the dealings locally, thus the Synod officers need not be involved. This notion that Keischnick is suing these four women is simply untrue by any definition.

 

[Studeclunker]

While the district may represent the Synod, it is the district that is responsible for the dealings locally, thus the Synod officers need not be involved. This notion that Keischnick is suing these four women is simply untrue by any definition.

I don't believe I ever suggested that Pres. Keischnick was suing anyone. Just that he is involved by default as he's the president of the organization that is suing these women. Also, there are a series of events that are just a little too convenient involved here. Like the previous cong. pres. making sure as he left that the women remaining on the board could be sued by omitting payment to just one part of the congregation's insurance.

[QUOTE]It is common practice found in most all congregational bylaws that if a congregation splits, the party that is still faithful to to Synod retains the rights to the property, regardless of the number. It's not a "majority rules" situation. In this case, the dissenting party has possession of the property. That is the basis of the suit. The dissenting party, those who have left the Synod, refuse to give the property back to the rightful owner, that being the congregation that is still a member of the Synod, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church.
[/QUOTE]

In this case, membership in the LCMS is not the issue. It's the following of the Lutheran Confessions. The Congregational Bylaws only state that the following of the Lutheran Confessions are the deciding factor of whom the 'true congregation' are. At least, that's the facts presented to us. The hiring of the Episcopal Priestess is one of the offenses being used as an excuse for this suit. An offense, by the way, that was done in ignorance and repented of.

There are a series of convenient details here. First, the cong. Pres. was advised by the Dist. Pres. to leave the congregation when they voted to leave the Synod. Also, the cong. constitutuion's caveat states members. These people were no longer members as they had left.

I suppose there could be enough legal details to sink these people left at Redeemer. It's interesting that the D.P. would be involved in such a disgraceful procedure to obtain a congregation's property by force when he couldn't do so with their cooperation. So, he forces them into a corner (not allowing a pastoral call) then uses legal manoevers to divest them of, not only the church property, but their own.

Let's go back to the original situation. A congregation shrinks to around a hundred members. The current pastor retires or has recieved another call. They aren't able to find a pastor to fill the position and the D.P. tells them that the situation is unhealthy and that a (rostered) pastor won't be allowed to accept their call. At this point, the congregation begins to separate into two camps. The larger one wants to stay where they are and the smaller wants to follow the DP's advice and close. Because of the apparent bitterness of this conflict, most of the members leave for other local churches. The remaining twenty or so people continue to battle for control of the congregational campus. This is the point where things get nasty. The current Cong. Pres. conveniently omits payment to only one portion of the cong. Insurance policy which opens the board to personal litigation. At this point he and his cadres leave the congregation. This provides his camp with a huge advantage as the other camp must now fund their defense of themselves out of their personal resources. The D.P. advises this small group (four people) to leave and join another approved congregation, whereupon he delcaires them the 'true' congregation of Redeemer. Dirty pool indeed. All of it verifiable.

What I've been saying here is that it's shameful of this D.P. to engage in these tactics, no matter how valuable the property of Redeemer is. I don't care if the property is worth seventeen million or one hundred seventy million, the LCMS is a religious Christian organization. They are supposed to be above this kind of grasping behaviour. Now, if these women had tried to sell the property, that would put a different light on the issue. The fact is, they haven't. The current congregation in possession of Redeemer just want to do what they've always done there, worship in the Lutheran manner.

Now, when the time comes that the congregation closes the doors and sells the property, that's the time for this kind of action. As long as there's even two people worshiping in the building, the grounds are kept up and the building maintained, this kind of conflict is uncalled for, embarasses and shames the LCMS as a whole.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is supposed to be a Christian organization. They are supposed to be above the worship of Mannon. By all rights, the D.P. should be advising these four people to just move on and do so himself.

 

[DaRev]

In this case, membership in the LCMS is not the issue. It's the following of the Lutheran Confessions.

Membership in the synod is exactly the issue, otherwise there would be no suit.

The Congregational Bylaws only state that the following of the Lutheran Confessions are the deciding factor of whom the 'true congregation' are. At least, that's the facts presented to us.

Again, the issue here is who is the member congregation in the LCMS. It's not the group that has control of the property. That's the issue.

You have also touched upon a critical point, that being "the facts presented to us." What is your source of those facts? If it's other than Otten and Cascione, I'd like to see it.

 

[Studeclunker]

[/size][/font][/font]

Membership in the synod is exactly the issue, otherwise there would be no suit.



Again, the issue here is who is the member congregation in the LCMS. It's not the group that has control of the property. That's the issue.

You have also touched upon a critical point, that being "the facts presented to us." What is your source of those facts? If it's other than Otten and Cascione, I'd like to see it.

You know very well where my source of information lies. Just like yours in this issue. I've belonged to three LCMS congregations in California. Not one of those congregations constitutions have a caveat stating that membership in the LCMS constitutes the 'true congregation'. All of them stated that the Lutheran Confessions as stated in the B.O.C. would be used to determine the 'true congregation' in the case of a dispute or church split. If both sides of the dispute are determined to be the 'true congregation' the property is to be sold and split evenly. In none of the LCMS congregations I've attended, has there been any connection between property ownership or membership in the LCMS. The property has always been held by the congregation. Like this congregation in Oakland, the only place where the Synod is mentioned (in regards to property ownership) is if the congregation disbands. And in Congregational Polity, according to Walther, that is as it should be.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

From those still waiting to hear the truth, maybe you can answert this one. Under WHAT conditions does a District of LCMS have the right to close a church of Jesus Christ?

I can't think of one, not even if it talked to (how dare they) Jack Casione. Isn't it time you expected more out of LCMS than this flopping fish of nonsense being parlayed as TRUTH by the most high GK (hey, I'm not bowing)?

Still in denial that the LCMS acts in denial of its own lawsuits? Talk to Todd Wilken from Issues, etc. The two denials of the Oakland 4 and Issues, Etc. seemed to be from the same mouth, GK's. He parrots the same phrases almost verbatum.

GK is no lawyer. We know that. Him personally filing the lawsuit? No one has said that. But he plays it for a little wiggle room. But he is the leader of the LARGEST, LUTHERAN BODY IN THE WORLD! I expect more decorum out of him, more truthfulness, less silly talk than out of a Frechman from in a Monty Python skit.

I can see the next convention lingering in a "now who ya talkin about and who ya talkin to when you say LCMS? You talkin about LCMS-Me? LCMS Synod? LCMS District?" If it is such an ambiguous term, who's on first should become the next synodical hurdle it faces.

I think, someone has painted themselves in a corner and don't know how to get out. Truth is still the best policy.

 

[DaRev]

You know very well where my source of information lies. Just like yours in this issue.

My DP told me the essence of this action, that being that the "congregation" that is still a member of the synod is suing the "congregation" that left the synod over the property. He didn't know any other details because they were not shared with him.

I've belonged to three LCMS congregations in California. Not one of those congregations constitutions have a caveat stating that membership in the LCMS constitutes the 'true congregation'. All of them stated that the Lutheran Confessions as stated in the B.O.C. would be used to determine the 'true congregation' in the case of a dispute or church split. If both sides of the dispute are determined to be the 'true congregation' the property is to be sold and split evenly. In none of the LCMS congregations I've attended, has there been any connection between property ownership or membership in the LCMS. The property has always been held by the congregation.

The probelm in this case, though, is that one of the "congregations" has left the synod. Apparently, there is a clause in that church's constitution that states the property belongs to the congregation that is a member of the LCMS, otherwise there would be no basis whatsoever for a suit. It would have never even reached this point. The courts would have thrown it out at the beginning. That's been included in the constitution of practically every congregation that I've ever been involved with.

The process is intended to protect the synod-member congregation from losing their property. The district has every right to help protect their own members. That is what they are doing.

Like this congregation in Oakland, the only place where the Synod is mentioned (in regards to property ownership) is if the congregation disbands. And in Congregational Polity, according to Walther, that is as it should be.

In reality, it is up to the congregation to determine what happens to the assets if they disband. Most congregations state in their constitutions that the property and assets are turned over to the district to be used in further ministry to God, since the monies given to build and maintain that congregation were given for His use and His purpose.

It may very well be that the courts may determine that the "congregation" that currently occupies the property will retain it. There is simply too little information currently known to make any other claims or conclusions. Personally, I hate to see it come to all of this. It may very well set a precedent that would be damaging to every congregation within the synod.

 

[DaRev]

From those still waiting to hear the truth, maybe you can answert this one. Under WHAT conditions does a District of LCMS have the right to close a church of Jesus Christ?

In essence, they don't. They can reccommend that a congregation close if they are found to be not viable. They can refuse to issue a call list if the congregation cannot prove that they can support a full time pastor for a minimum of two years.

I can't think of one, not even if it talked to (how dare they) Jack Casione. Isn't it time you expected more out of LCMS than this flopping fish of nonsense being parlayed as TRUTH by the most high GK (hey, I'm not bowing)?

Still in denial that the LCMS acts in denial of its own lawsuits? Talk to Todd Wilken from Issues, etc. The two denials of the Oakland 4 and Issues, Etc. seemed to be from the same mouth, GK's. He parrots the same phrases almost verbatum.

Apples and oranges.

GK is no lawyer. We know that. Him personally filing the lawsuit? No one has said that. But he plays it for a little wiggle room. But he is the leader of the LARGEST, LUTHERAN BODY IN THE WORLD! I expect more decorum out of him, more truthfulness, less silly talk than out of a Frechman from in a Monty Python skit.

Do you have proof that he lied? All I've heard him say is that he was unaware it had been filed. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that, since he is not a direct party to it, nor are the districts required to gain his approval to conduct their business within their own district.

I can see the next convention lingering in a "now who ya talkin about and who ya talkin to when you say LCMS? You talkin about LCMS-Me? LCMS Synod? LCMS District?" If it is such an ambiguous term, who's on first should become the next synodical hurdle it faces.

I think, someone has painted themselves in a corner and don't know how to get out. Truth is still the best policy.

 

[Alaskan Elijah]

As a person who watched the LCMS President stand by and knowingly allow a DP attack faithful pastors (including my own) driving them out, I am not at all shocked over what is happening in Oakland. Regardless of how "humans will be humans" when their emotions are high, the LCMS political 'leaders' and a fair number of District Presidents will apparently violate the LCMS constitution, their own vows, and the constitutions of the individual congregation to obtain their political objectives...all the while under a pious disguise.

Do not think this is an uncommon problem, or that this is an unusual strategy employed by team Keishnick. They will tell you this is an isolated congregation and problem. Not so. This president and his minions will do ANYTHING they please as long as there are ignorant congregations or members of LCMS congregations that allow it...and so far they are allowing it. Up until 2008, Alaska was a "pit" of LCMS churches without a common confessional faith, where filling the pews trumped a faithful proclamation of His Word. Communion used as a tool of evangelism to attract new members. The NorthWest District under the 'leadership' of Schumacher (recently retired) and especially Alaska completely lost it's way...and those pastors and congregations who stood up and tried to do something about it were destroyed by the very men elected to prevent that type of behavior. All faithful Lutherans are celebrating the retirement of Schumacher and the fact that despite 30 years of horrific damage to our confession of faith in Alaska, the seminary's are finally churning out faithful men who actually see their call as a "vow" to God. I encourage all LCMS members to look at the vows of ordination all LCMS pastors take, and compare these simiple words of servant leadership to their pastor's actions. If you have a pastor who actually follows these vows as sacred as the vows spoken in marriage, I suggest that you have a pastor who is at great risk in the LCMS. If you have a pastor of this type, take good care of him, support him and when the time comes, be prepared to fight off the attacks of the anti-christ or hirelings who will come after him from our own beloved synod.

You should also know that should you take this stand, you will likely fall to the "wolves wrapped in sheep's clothing". They will stop at nothing to destroy confessional Lutherans and your pastor. If you understand what it means to be Lutheran, and believe our common confessions as required in each congregational constitution, then beware!

But while Satan's lions rage across the field....Christ is already King. Many of us in Alaska wait for the day when a faithful Lutheran Pastor will be willing to establish a new congregation in Kenai/Soldotna so that we may return once again to a faithful litturgy and worship as God intended, where the Gospel and the Law are proclaimed to all with power and glory.

For now do not be taken in by those who question whether the Oakland 4 is a reality....there are many Elijahs in Alaska who have no church home within reasonable distance because the very 'leaders' in the Northwest District and the Alaska Circuit who were elected to stand by our confessions and support faithful churches decided to destroy the very congregations they were to help.

We are in the process of replacing retiring pastors with men who have a solid confession, but they walk on egg shells in a State that is not at all used to being Lutheran. Pray for us and help us (The LCMS) regain our submission to God's Word.