-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
LCMS sues Oakland CA congregation for property #2
- Thread starter Studeclunker
- Start date
- Dec 8, 2007
- 30,986
- 5,814
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
Not sure how things work in the US, but in LCC, this is indeed how our Synod, District, and Congregational Constitutions are set up.
Upvote
0
While I agree that such pastors are "at great risk", the greater risk is from the congregations themselves. They don't want pastors who stand by their ordination vows. Rather, they want their pastors to be their puppets. A pastor who stands firm on his vows, on the Scriptures, and on the Confessions is in for a real battle against congregational leaders who want to turn their churches into social clubs. I feel that a pastor who has been called by a truly Confessional congregation should thank and praise God daily for the blessing that he has truly been given.
Upvote
0
Yes, sadly you are correct....and I stand "reminded" of the facts of secular men and woman trying to use the tools of this world to "do what we think God needs our help with" My assumption is that the Synod is supposed to come along side of the faithful pastor and support him for doing the very things you mentioned to help the congregation understand that they can indeed follow sound doctrine, or they can leave the synod for another faith that has already lost it's way. Clearly, this is not the case in most districts in the LCMS today. In our case, we had the majority of the congregation wanting to follow a faithful pastor, but the minority had the support of circuit officers who were strong supporters of Keishnick and undermined and interferred with both the pastor, and the majority of the congregational (President, Vice-President, and deacon) counsel who stood with our pastor. When the day finallly came that the DRP issued it's final decision vindicating our pastor...the minority of the congregation were told by the then DP that they could ignore the DRP decision if they wanted to....they did.
The world teaches those of us not under vows of ordination that "marketing, advertizing, personality of the pastor, great looks, energy of the congregation" are all the components of "growing" a church. This is what I was taught in my secular job and is in conflict with God's way of doing things. If you preach in a district where you are supported by the district, then you can start by bringing sound teaching slowly at a foundational level. Like feeding milk to children until they are ready for meat. If you are in a district where the DP has lost his way and is worshiping at the alter of Keishnick...then you do have a challenge. Time is helping the faithful however, since many of the "walk-out" era pastors are retiring and allowing the Synod, it's pastors, and Christ's Church to find their roots of faith back in His Word. Ultimately, I believe that as God works sanctification in us as individuals, He also works sanctification of His church on earth. Our synod may yet again be the last vestige of faithful worship. For now, it is not.
If we believe that the power to change hearts comes from the faithful proclamation of God's Word, then we can grow a congregation the way Christ taught us to....not in numbers of people in the pews for the faithful are only but a "remnant", but instead growing in knowlege of Him. Small numbers may be seen as a failure by the worlds standards, but in the end, it is the faithful remant who will stand with Christ, and the majority who will face his judgement. Stay faithful brother!
The world teaches those of us not under vows of ordination that "marketing, advertizing, personality of the pastor, great looks, energy of the congregation" are all the components of "growing" a church. This is what I was taught in my secular job and is in conflict with God's way of doing things. If you preach in a district where you are supported by the district, then you can start by bringing sound teaching slowly at a foundational level. Like feeding milk to children until they are ready for meat. If you are in a district where the DP has lost his way and is worshiping at the alter of Keishnick...then you do have a challenge. Time is helping the faithful however, since many of the "walk-out" era pastors are retiring and allowing the Synod, it's pastors, and Christ's Church to find their roots of faith back in His Word. Ultimately, I believe that as God works sanctification in us as individuals, He also works sanctification of His church on earth. Our synod may yet again be the last vestige of faithful worship. For now, it is not.
If we believe that the power to change hearts comes from the faithful proclamation of God's Word, then we can grow a congregation the way Christ taught us to....not in numbers of people in the pews for the faithful are only but a "remnant", but instead growing in knowlege of Him. Small numbers may be seen as a failure by the worlds standards, but in the end, it is the faithful remant who will stand with Christ, and the majority who will face his judgement. Stay faithful brother!
Upvote
0
Donsfreespirit
Newbie
Here is another update. From By Rev. Jack Cascione
Rec'd in my e-mail 3/16/2010.
Hope this comes to an end soon, so these people can have their lives and Church back!
May 7 Hearing Date Set for LCMS Suit against CA Women
Attorney for the Defendants, Paul Nelson, filed a 23-page motion for a Summary Judgment in the California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer of Oakland CA for their church property. A hearing date has been set for May 7, 2010 in Alameda County, CA.
Legal Counsel for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Board of Directors and Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Sherri Strand, already filed a motion for a Summary Judgment in February, hoping the judge would immediately hand the church property over to the District. She was disappointed to learn that more time was given to the Defendants to file their own motion. This was the first indication from the court that the Synod’s suit may be in trouble.
Nelson presents a litany of arguments explaining why the suit should be thrown out. Most of his argumentation is centered on a major flaw in Strand’s suit, namely, the California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod doesn’t have any standing under California law to sue anyone for their church property.
In order to justify the name of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod being on the front of the suit, Nelson writes: “The DISTRICT recruited four former church members as putative plaintiffs, misrepresented its motive as being to ‘preserve’ the church, and used the pretext of a ‘doctrinal dispute’ to try to wrest the church away from its majority members.”
Nelson also points out, “No Plaintiff ever was excluded or prevented from attending services at Our Redeemer; they were always welcome. (DF 59.) They have not attended services only because they were told not to do so by [District President] Newton, to prevent any reconciliation. (DF 59.)”
In other words, if the District allowed the Plaintiffs to reconcile with the Defendants, the District couldn’t put its name on the suit. This action clearly shows the kind of farcical theatrics played out by the LCMS President and the District Presidents at the 2007 Convention in the promotion of RESOLUTION 8-02A “To Affirm Christian Resolution of Disputes.” The only real purpose of the resolution is to forbid individuals from suing the Synod; but, the Synod is at liberty to sue any individuals it chooses. However, in this suit the District added the cover of four recruited plaintiffs so the LCMS Attorney could conduct the suit from St. Louis in behalf of the District.
Our Redeemer’s Pastor, Rev. Monte Gusewelle, took a call to another church in 2002. Initially the District told Our Redeemer that the congregation would receive mission status, but shortly after Gusewelle left, the District told the congregation to close with dignity and give their property to the District. In his deposition, Newton admitted that he never supplied the congregation with a call list, even though the Synod was established for that express purpose.
The Synod’s claim for doctrinal reasons as a basis for the suit has a hollow ring now that the new interim President of Concordia University Ann Arbor is a Presbyterian. Under oath, President Gerald Kieschnick would not agree with Article 12 of the LCMS Constitution that the Districts were a geographical part of the LCMS and stated that the Districts’ funds were not the Synod’s funds. This leaves no other conclusion than that the purpose of all LCMS congregations is to support their Districts. Unlike their original mission, the congregations now exist for the benefit of the Districts.
Nelson even shows where the District attempted to mislead the Court by misquoting Our Redeemer’s Constitution as if the Defendants were removed from the Our Redeemer Church roster. He writes: “As discussed above, no Defendant ever was a member of the LCMS, and so could not ‘leave’ it.”
He further writes: “Conversely, none has had their membership terminated under ORC [Our Redeemer Constitution] . Church membership may be terminated under Article IV.B.4. only by, (a) moving away to a different church and (b) joining that ‘congregation outside of our fellowship,’ (c) going missing for a period of time, or (d) excommunication, where they have conducted themselves in ‘an unchristian manner’ and remaining ‘impenitent after proper admonition.’ Plaintiffs purposefully misquote subsection (b) as if it was a separate ground for termination.”
No members were removed from Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, either by the Plaintiffs or the Defendants.
In his deposition Kieschnick clearly stated that lay people were not members of the LCMS, only congregations and pastors. He also stated that all congregations were autonomous and the Synod did not own church property. Nelson then argues, if this is true, by what right does the LCMS claim to be a landlord removing the tenants from their own property?
“Ejectment is a landlord/tenant remedy for trespass that arises where real property is leased or granted with a right of reentry, and the tenant/purchaser defaults. (Civil Code § 793; Mossi v.”
If the Synod claims that the four Defendants are not and have never been members of the LCMS, by what right is the Synod a Plaintiff in the suit?
This is really the whole case. If the District planned to help the Plaintiffs regain their church property, they had no right to have the name California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod listed as a Plaintiff. Of course, without Sherri Strand conducting the suit from St. Louis, the Plaintiffs would have never filed the suit.
President Gerald Kieschnick’s letter to Herman Otten claiming that the Synod was not involved in the suit, and subsequent deposition to this claim, became a major factor in Nelson’s motion. Kieschnick’s further refusal to answer if he had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors raises serious questions about the Synod’s actual involvement with the suit.
It will be interesting to see what the judge decides as to whether the District has the right to remove people who are not members of the Synod from property it doesn’t own.
Rec'd in my e-mail 3/16/2010.
Hope this comes to an end soon, so these people can have their lives and Church back!
May 7 Hearing Date Set for LCMS Suit against CA Women
Attorney for the Defendants, Paul Nelson, filed a 23-page motion for a Summary Judgment in the California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer of Oakland CA for their church property. A hearing date has been set for May 7, 2010 in Alameda County, CA.
Legal Counsel for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Board of Directors and Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Sherri Strand, already filed a motion for a Summary Judgment in February, hoping the judge would immediately hand the church property over to the District. She was disappointed to learn that more time was given to the Defendants to file their own motion. This was the first indication from the court that the Synod’s suit may be in trouble.
Nelson presents a litany of arguments explaining why the suit should be thrown out. Most of his argumentation is centered on a major flaw in Strand’s suit, namely, the California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod doesn’t have any standing under California law to sue anyone for their church property.
In order to justify the name of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod being on the front of the suit, Nelson writes: “The DISTRICT recruited four former church members as putative plaintiffs, misrepresented its motive as being to ‘preserve’ the church, and used the pretext of a ‘doctrinal dispute’ to try to wrest the church away from its majority members.”
Nelson also points out, “No Plaintiff ever was excluded or prevented from attending services at Our Redeemer; they were always welcome. (DF 59.) They have not attended services only because they were told not to do so by [District President] Newton, to prevent any reconciliation. (DF 59.)”
In other words, if the District allowed the Plaintiffs to reconcile with the Defendants, the District couldn’t put its name on the suit. This action clearly shows the kind of farcical theatrics played out by the LCMS President and the District Presidents at the 2007 Convention in the promotion of RESOLUTION 8-02A “To Affirm Christian Resolution of Disputes.” The only real purpose of the resolution is to forbid individuals from suing the Synod; but, the Synod is at liberty to sue any individuals it chooses. However, in this suit the District added the cover of four recruited plaintiffs so the LCMS Attorney could conduct the suit from St. Louis in behalf of the District.
Our Redeemer’s Pastor, Rev. Monte Gusewelle, took a call to another church in 2002. Initially the District told Our Redeemer that the congregation would receive mission status, but shortly after Gusewelle left, the District told the congregation to close with dignity and give their property to the District. In his deposition, Newton admitted that he never supplied the congregation with a call list, even though the Synod was established for that express purpose.
The Synod’s claim for doctrinal reasons as a basis for the suit has a hollow ring now that the new interim President of Concordia University Ann Arbor is a Presbyterian. Under oath, President Gerald Kieschnick would not agree with Article 12 of the LCMS Constitution that the Districts were a geographical part of the LCMS and stated that the Districts’ funds were not the Synod’s funds. This leaves no other conclusion than that the purpose of all LCMS congregations is to support their Districts. Unlike their original mission, the congregations now exist for the benefit of the Districts.
Nelson even shows where the District attempted to mislead the Court by misquoting Our Redeemer’s Constitution as if the Defendants were removed from the Our Redeemer Church roster. He writes: “As discussed above, no Defendant ever was a member of the LCMS, and so could not ‘leave’ it.”
He further writes: “Conversely, none has had their membership terminated under ORC [Our Redeemer Constitution] . Church membership may be terminated under Article IV.B.4. only by, (a) moving away to a different church and (b) joining that ‘congregation outside of our fellowship,’ (c) going missing for a period of time, or (d) excommunication, where they have conducted themselves in ‘an unchristian manner’ and remaining ‘impenitent after proper admonition.’ Plaintiffs purposefully misquote subsection (b) as if it was a separate ground for termination.”
No members were removed from Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, either by the Plaintiffs or the Defendants.
In his deposition Kieschnick clearly stated that lay people were not members of the LCMS, only congregations and pastors. He also stated that all congregations were autonomous and the Synod did not own church property. Nelson then argues, if this is true, by what right does the LCMS claim to be a landlord removing the tenants from their own property?
“Ejectment is a landlord/tenant remedy for trespass that arises where real property is leased or granted with a right of reentry, and the tenant/purchaser defaults. (Civil Code § 793; Mossi v.”
If the Synod claims that the four Defendants are not and have never been members of the LCMS, by what right is the Synod a Plaintiff in the suit?
This is really the whole case. If the District planned to help the Plaintiffs regain their church property, they had no right to have the name California-Nevada- Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod listed as a Plaintiff. Of course, without Sherri Strand conducting the suit from St. Louis, the Plaintiffs would have never filed the suit.
President Gerald Kieschnick’s letter to Herman Otten claiming that the Synod was not involved in the suit, and subsequent deposition to this claim, became a major factor in Nelson’s motion. Kieschnick’s further refusal to answer if he had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors raises serious questions about the Synod’s actual involvement with the suit.
It will be interesting to see what the judge decides as to whether the District has the right to remove people who are not members of the Synod from property it doesn’t own.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
T
therubberball
Guest
Dear National Religion and/or News Editor:
Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland, California has filed a motion for summary judgment as defendants in a legal case being pursued by the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, and its District President, Robert Newton.
The complete text of summary judgment has been posted at Marti Oakley's Proud Political Junkie's Gazette at Word Press:
[Question of the Day: What is being expended at a faster rate--the funds of the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod in pursuing this litigation, or the sagging credibility of Gerald Kieschnick, Robert Newton, and the entire Missouri Synod Council of Presidents (COP) as Christian leaders in American Lutheranism?]
[Answer: May 7th is Judgment Day in California: And Herman Otten of Christian News and the national religious media will be ready and waiting. . . .]
Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland, California has filed a motion for summary judgment as defendants in a legal case being pursued by the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, and its District President, Robert Newton.
The complete text of summary judgment has been posted at Marti Oakley's Proud Political Junkie's Gazette at Word Press:
[Question of the Day: What is being expended at a faster rate--the funds of the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod in pursuing this litigation, or the sagging credibility of Gerald Kieschnick, Robert Newton, and the entire Missouri Synod Council of Presidents (COP) as Christian leaders in American Lutheranism?]
[Answer: May 7th is Judgment Day in California: And Herman Otten of Christian News and the national religious media will be ready and waiting. . . .]
Upvote
0
T
therubberball
Guest
Excerpt:
[Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod] President Gerald Kieschnicks Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.
LCMS Desperate to Push Lawsuit against Four CA Women Past Convention
In January, LCMS legal counsel for the LCMS Board of Directors filed her motion for Summary Judgment in the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer of Oakland CA for their church property.
At the end of February, attorney for the defense Paul Nelson filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment. Both parties are waiting for the judge to make his decision on May 7th. Then the Synod blinked.
Attorney Timothy Noelker, Thompson Coburn LLP associate on the lawsuit with Attorney Sherri Strand, sent a 17 page letter to Nelson opening up new issues not stated in the original suit filed by CNHD-LCMS in December of 2007. In other words, the original suit filed by attorney Sherri Strand in behalf of the CNHD-LCMS is weak.
Nelsons claim that the District has no right to remove people from their church who are not members of the Synod from property CNHD-LCMS doesnt own is devastating. In other words, Nelson claims that CNHD-LCMShas no standing to bring suit against these four California ladies.
President Gerald Kieschnicks Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.
In a 17 page letter, attorney Timothy Noelkeran Episcopalianwrites a flailing attempt to redirect the suit. We are not surprised that attorney Sherri Strands name is not on the letter. Much of the letter appears to be written to confuse the 2010 convention delegates about the original reason the suit was filed and justify an estimated half million dollars in legal fees.
The original lawsuit was supposedly written for doctrinal reasons about women clergy. The congregation is currently being served by former LCMS pastor Rev. Lawrence Richmond, who was driven out of the Synod for refusing to serve open communion. When Kieschnick was questioned under oath, he was not able to name the Bible passages on which the suit was supposedly based, nor were the Bible passages identified in the original suit. The new 17 page letter is about anything but doctrine.
1. The CNHD-LCMS is trying to cut off the supply of all donations to the congregation. They want to intimidate all current donors by claiming they have a right to examine the congregations numbered accounts. The 90 LCMS pastors who sued Kieschnick for voter-fraud at the 2004 Convention and their support group were subject to public humiliation at the 2007 Convention and recrimination by LCMS District Presidents. What does the Synod plan to do if it learns the names of those who donated funds to help pay to the legal defense of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church?
Noekler writes for CNHD-LCMS: C. Request for Product No. 5 - All bank records of OUR REDEEMER relating to the period between January 1, 2003, and the present, including but not limited to bank statements, copies of cancelled checks, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and records of electronic transfers, withdrawals, or deposits.
What does this have to do with false doctrine?
2. The Synod thought they could win the lawsuit by suing four elderly women who are officers of the congregation. However, to everyones surprise, they are thriving, including 77 year-old special education teacher Mary-Ann Hill. Now CNHD-LCMS realizes they should have sued congregational vice-president Dr. Ben Chavis, but they really didnt want to tangle with him.
Chavis is an independently wealthy entrepreneur, has two earned doctorates in Education and Philosophy, is a faculty member at the University of Arizona, and is a successful businessman. He recently won a lawsuit with the Oakland California School District Teachers Union to open a very successful charter school on Our Redeemer Lutheran Churchs property. When Strand accused Dr. Chavis during his deposition of making money on the charter school, he replied that he hoped he could make more.
When this writer first learned about Chavis involvement with Our Redeemer in August of 2009, he knew the Synod had stuck its head in a noose from which it could not withdraw. Noelkers letter is aimed at preventing Chavis from donating to the defense of the suit. Noelker writers: Dr. Chavis' personal contributions to Defendants' defense and any relevant documents and information are discoverable because they are not protected by the California constitutional right to privacy.
Again Noelker writes: Even a bank customer's personal financial information transmitted to the bank in the course of his business operations, is not absolutely protected by the right to privacy.
In other words, when the Synod sues a member of a congregation they claim the right to know everything about you. Welcome to the evangelical hand of church fellowship.
This is astonishing because CNHD-LCMS refuses to tell Nelson the source of the mission funds used to sue Our Redeemer Lutheran Church for its property. Kieschnick testified under oath that he had no idea where the money CNHD-LCMS spent on the suit is coming from, even though Sherri Strand is acting as his personal attorney. Nelson believes CNHD-LCMS has been paying the legal fees of the four plaintiffs with mission funds and running the suit through the Synods legal counsel. Strand ordered Kieschnick not to answer when Nelson asked if Kieschnick had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors.
3. The CNHD-LCMS asked Chavis about his religion as follows under oath:
Strand: Question: "Could you please describe for us your religious background, your religious history?" Chavis Dep. 47:6-7.
Nelson: Objection: "For the record, I'm going to object that that invades his right to privacy. He's not a party to this case and his personal religious history is not discoverable; however, to avoid having to go in on a motion, I'll permit him to answer those questions subject to a motion to strike them on the basis that they're not discoverable and they're without any waiver of his right to privacy." Chavis Dep. 47:7-15.
Why didnt they simply ask Dr. Chavis when he was confirmed? But they wanted much more! This must be the first time in the history of the LCMS that a member of a congregation has been asked to justify his faith on the witness stand.
Noelker writes: Plaintiffs merely wish to depose Dr. Chavis on his alleged membership and involvement at Our Redeemer solely for purposes of litigating this action.
This reads like the Inquisition. They want the court to judge Dr. Chavis faith merely for the purpose of litigation! In Kieschnicks era of Church Growth, where LCMS mega -churches confirm new members in one afternoon meeting with the pastor and then go back to listen to the praise band, the Synod wants the court to judge what kind of Lutheran Chavis is. But the Court cannot do that because it would be a fundamental violation of the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment.
Hi, Im from the LCMS District Office. We want to know about your church membership for the purpose of litigation. We can see why Strand had Noelker sign this letter.
Why are LCMS district presidents exempt from judgment of their faith? Why doesnt the Synod put Atlantic District President Dr. David Benke under oath and ask why he is still a member of the LCMS when Benke claims that Moslems worship the true God? Why arent LCMS District Presidents accountable for the firing of Dr. Wallace Schulz from the Lutheran Hour? This is because Kieschnick protects his District Presidents.
Noelker claims Chavis vote was important in Our Redeemers leaving the Synod. However, the vote was unanimous. Dr. Chavis vote wouldnt have changed anything. The CNHD-LCMS is doing everything possible to stop Dr. Chavis, and they dont know how many others, from giving any financial support to these women.
Noelker keeps asking for more than financial records, which is really nothing more than harassment. This suit was supposedly about doctrine, and now we find out it is about money and Dr. Chavis running a successful charter school on the former site of Concordia Oakland. Numerous LCMS churches have leased their property to charter schools. Other LCMS congregations consider charter schools a blessed source of income and an opportunity for outreach. Why is the CHND-LCMS trying to shut down this charter school?
Noelker complains: "Defendants continue to exercise exclusive dominion and control over the property, books, accounts, and membership rosters of Our Redeemer in spite of the fact that they are no longer 'communicant members' of Our Redeemer and in spite of the efforts of the District President to rectify and resolve the issues on behalf of the LCMS-affiliated members of Our Redeemer." The Defendants are only four of the congregants who voted to disaffiliate and they do not personally exercise exclusive dominion or control over property owned by the church. They are part of the church that exercises control of its own property under its constitution.
We ask, why shouldnt the majority of the congregants of Our Redeemer continue exclusive dominion and control over the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church? The State of California says they own the property. The State of California has issued them a document declaring them to be a tax-exempt church including their own tax ID number, regardless of what the LCMS says, which is why CNHD-LCMS is suing them. If it were otherwise, CNHD-LCMS could simply ask the Sheriff to throw them off the property.
There is a lot more to this suit than anyone is talking about. If these four women win their case, some LCMS officials may be leaving the country for the mission field. These women will then have standing in court to discover what happened to some of their church property that was used by the former Concordia Oakland.
View interview with Oakland Four
[Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod] President Gerald Kieschnicks Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.
LCMS Desperate to Push Lawsuit against Four CA Women Past Convention
In January, LCMS legal counsel for the LCMS Board of Directors filed her motion for Summary Judgment in the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer of Oakland CA for their church property.
At the end of February, attorney for the defense Paul Nelson filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment. Both parties are waiting for the judge to make his decision on May 7th. Then the Synod blinked.
Attorney Timothy Noelker, Thompson Coburn LLP associate on the lawsuit with Attorney Sherri Strand, sent a 17 page letter to Nelson opening up new issues not stated in the original suit filed by CNHD-LCMS in December of 2007. In other words, the original suit filed by attorney Sherri Strand in behalf of the CNHD-LCMS is weak.
Nelsons claim that the District has no right to remove people from their church who are not members of the Synod from property CNHD-LCMS doesnt own is devastating. In other words, Nelson claims that CNHD-LCMShas no standing to bring suit against these four California ladies.
President Gerald Kieschnicks Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.
In a 17 page letter, attorney Timothy Noelkeran Episcopalianwrites a flailing attempt to redirect the suit. We are not surprised that attorney Sherri Strands name is not on the letter. Much of the letter appears to be written to confuse the 2010 convention delegates about the original reason the suit was filed and justify an estimated half million dollars in legal fees.
The original lawsuit was supposedly written for doctrinal reasons about women clergy. The congregation is currently being served by former LCMS pastor Rev. Lawrence Richmond, who was driven out of the Synod for refusing to serve open communion. When Kieschnick was questioned under oath, he was not able to name the Bible passages on which the suit was supposedly based, nor were the Bible passages identified in the original suit. The new 17 page letter is about anything but doctrine.
1. The CNHD-LCMS is trying to cut off the supply of all donations to the congregation. They want to intimidate all current donors by claiming they have a right to examine the congregations numbered accounts. The 90 LCMS pastors who sued Kieschnick for voter-fraud at the 2004 Convention and their support group were subject to public humiliation at the 2007 Convention and recrimination by LCMS District Presidents. What does the Synod plan to do if it learns the names of those who donated funds to help pay to the legal defense of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church?
Noekler writes for CNHD-LCMS: C. Request for Product No. 5 - All bank records of OUR REDEEMER relating to the period between January 1, 2003, and the present, including but not limited to bank statements, copies of cancelled checks, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and records of electronic transfers, withdrawals, or deposits.
What does this have to do with false doctrine?
2. The Synod thought they could win the lawsuit by suing four elderly women who are officers of the congregation. However, to everyones surprise, they are thriving, including 77 year-old special education teacher Mary-Ann Hill. Now CNHD-LCMS realizes they should have sued congregational vice-president Dr. Ben Chavis, but they really didnt want to tangle with him.
Chavis is an independently wealthy entrepreneur, has two earned doctorates in Education and Philosophy, is a faculty member at the University of Arizona, and is a successful businessman. He recently won a lawsuit with the Oakland California School District Teachers Union to open a very successful charter school on Our Redeemer Lutheran Churchs property. When Strand accused Dr. Chavis during his deposition of making money on the charter school, he replied that he hoped he could make more.
When this writer first learned about Chavis involvement with Our Redeemer in August of 2009, he knew the Synod had stuck its head in a noose from which it could not withdraw. Noelkers letter is aimed at preventing Chavis from donating to the defense of the suit. Noelker writers: Dr. Chavis' personal contributions to Defendants' defense and any relevant documents and information are discoverable because they are not protected by the California constitutional right to privacy.
Again Noelker writes: Even a bank customer's personal financial information transmitted to the bank in the course of his business operations, is not absolutely protected by the right to privacy.
In other words, when the Synod sues a member of a congregation they claim the right to know everything about you. Welcome to the evangelical hand of church fellowship.
This is astonishing because CNHD-LCMS refuses to tell Nelson the source of the mission funds used to sue Our Redeemer Lutheran Church for its property. Kieschnick testified under oath that he had no idea where the money CNHD-LCMS spent on the suit is coming from, even though Sherri Strand is acting as his personal attorney. Nelson believes CNHD-LCMS has been paying the legal fees of the four plaintiffs with mission funds and running the suit through the Synods legal counsel. Strand ordered Kieschnick not to answer when Nelson asked if Kieschnick had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors.
3. The CNHD-LCMS asked Chavis about his religion as follows under oath:
Strand: Question: "Could you please describe for us your religious background, your religious history?" Chavis Dep. 47:6-7.
Nelson: Objection: "For the record, I'm going to object that that invades his right to privacy. He's not a party to this case and his personal religious history is not discoverable; however, to avoid having to go in on a motion, I'll permit him to answer those questions subject to a motion to strike them on the basis that they're not discoverable and they're without any waiver of his right to privacy." Chavis Dep. 47:7-15.
Why didnt they simply ask Dr. Chavis when he was confirmed? But they wanted much more! This must be the first time in the history of the LCMS that a member of a congregation has been asked to justify his faith on the witness stand.
Noelker writes: Plaintiffs merely wish to depose Dr. Chavis on his alleged membership and involvement at Our Redeemer solely for purposes of litigating this action.
This reads like the Inquisition. They want the court to judge Dr. Chavis faith merely for the purpose of litigation! In Kieschnicks era of Church Growth, where LCMS mega -churches confirm new members in one afternoon meeting with the pastor and then go back to listen to the praise band, the Synod wants the court to judge what kind of Lutheran Chavis is. But the Court cannot do that because it would be a fundamental violation of the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment.
Hi, Im from the LCMS District Office. We want to know about your church membership for the purpose of litigation. We can see why Strand had Noelker sign this letter.
Why are LCMS district presidents exempt from judgment of their faith? Why doesnt the Synod put Atlantic District President Dr. David Benke under oath and ask why he is still a member of the LCMS when Benke claims that Moslems worship the true God? Why arent LCMS District Presidents accountable for the firing of Dr. Wallace Schulz from the Lutheran Hour? This is because Kieschnick protects his District Presidents.
Noelker claims Chavis vote was important in Our Redeemers leaving the Synod. However, the vote was unanimous. Dr. Chavis vote wouldnt have changed anything. The CNHD-LCMS is doing everything possible to stop Dr. Chavis, and they dont know how many others, from giving any financial support to these women.
Noelker keeps asking for more than financial records, which is really nothing more than harassment. This suit was supposedly about doctrine, and now we find out it is about money and Dr. Chavis running a successful charter school on the former site of Concordia Oakland. Numerous LCMS churches have leased their property to charter schools. Other LCMS congregations consider charter schools a blessed source of income and an opportunity for outreach. Why is the CHND-LCMS trying to shut down this charter school?
Noelker complains: "Defendants continue to exercise exclusive dominion and control over the property, books, accounts, and membership rosters of Our Redeemer in spite of the fact that they are no longer 'communicant members' of Our Redeemer and in spite of the efforts of the District President to rectify and resolve the issues on behalf of the LCMS-affiliated members of Our Redeemer." The Defendants are only four of the congregants who voted to disaffiliate and they do not personally exercise exclusive dominion or control over property owned by the church. They are part of the church that exercises control of its own property under its constitution.
We ask, why shouldnt the majority of the congregants of Our Redeemer continue exclusive dominion and control over the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church? The State of California says they own the property. The State of California has issued them a document declaring them to be a tax-exempt church including their own tax ID number, regardless of what the LCMS says, which is why CNHD-LCMS is suing them. If it were otherwise, CNHD-LCMS could simply ask the Sheriff to throw them off the property.
There is a lot more to this suit than anyone is talking about. If these four women win their case, some LCMS officials may be leaving the country for the mission field. These women will then have standing in court to discover what happened to some of their church property that was used by the former Concordia Oakland.
View interview with Oakland Four
Upvote
0
Similar threads
