LCMS's illegal land grab

[LutheranandLonely]

I don't know why people don't post about things in this forum other than maybe wanting a place to go where they don't feel like they have to talk about it. Since I joined here several years ago, there have been lots of discussions on things going on at Synod. Some of us prefer to find sources other than Christian News. Let's see, there is Wittenberg Trail, several Facebook groups, Steadfast Lutherans to name a few. Then there are District Conventions, Pastor's conferences where I have heard lots of discussions.

I find it hard to believe that there are people who are interested in what goes on at Synod who do not know that there is an effort being made to elect a new Synodical President.

Just because you don't see it being discussed here does not mean things are not being discussed.

People probably don't care to read about Synod here anymore. Facebook is a far better network tool to discuss the candidates running for SP. Most people there are following Matt Harrison's bid to become the SP of LCMS. Who cares what GK is doing? I am praying that people are ready for a change. JAO Preus held the reigns through the 70s, Bohlmann the 80s, Berry the 90s and Kieschnick the 2000s. It is time for a change and Matt Harrison is the man to do the job.

 

[QuiltAngel]

So true L&L

 

[BoC]

What a wealth of information in this thread. Glad I found it.

I can't insert links yet but here is the address:
groups.yahoo.com/group/reclaimnews/message/186

March 27, 2010
Christian News Only Source for Truth About LCMS Convention and Lawsuit
There is a famous line from the movie “A Few Good Men,” spoken by actor Jack Nicolson, “You can’t handle the truth.”

In his deposition given under oath, LCMS President Kieschnick recently claimed that Herman Otten’s Christian News has been twisting the truth for 40 years. Kieschnick used this as his excuse for not telling the whole truth in a public letter to Otten about the LCMS’ involvement with the California-Nevada-Hawaii District’s lawsuit against four California women. In other words, since Kieschnick claims Otten is twisting the truth is Kieschnick’s excuse for the same behavior. As they say, one good twist deserves another.

We have heard all the claims about church politics, agendas, slanted reporting, etc., but the question is, “Who is willing to tell the truth about the LCMS?”

The only publication that has even reported on the suit filed by Synodical legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, attorney Sherri Strand, against four California women for their church property is Christian News.
Much of the LCMS laity has come to believe that the District Office is the source of true doctrine. If their District President says it is all about church politics and right wing agenda, laypeople think, “It must be so.” Except this lawsuit is taking place in the real world. Thus far, it has cost the LCMS an estimated half a million dollars in legal fees and depositions given by the Synodical President, CNH District President Newton, and District Executive David Sauer. Was that extremist we-want-old-LCMS-money or was that bold-new-vision-of-LCMS money?

News from the District and Synodical offices about the LCMS is so managed and controlled they will never tell the laypeople that the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is using church money to sue four California ladies for their church property. These ladies are officers of their church. Under the law, all officers of LCMS Congregations are considered owners of the church property. Of course the solution is for LCMS laypeople to surrender their church property to the Synod and then they can’t be sued for their property.

As in every election for LCMS president in the last 40 years, Christian News is once again the only publication that will dare to publish the real issues.
There was a time when the issues were about doctrine. Those days are past. Now the issues are about Synodical restructuring, centralization of power, control of congregational property, the district office being the real mission of the Synod, and congregations existing to support the district office.

In the past 40 years the debate has moved from the Holy Book to the check book. Kieschnick is right when he says, “This is not your grandfather’s church.” It is looking a lot more like the district office’s church, or as the Council of District President like to call themselves, “the Greater Church.”

For laypeople who are interested in reading the truth about what the LCMS doesn’t want to tell them, Christian News is the only source. Otten is not running for LCMS President. He doesn’t collect a salary from the LCMS. He doesn’t have a political party or organization. He writes the truth about the Bible and about the LCMS. When he untwists news from the Purple Palace, Kieschnick calls it “twisting.”

How did the LCMS get involved in this lawsuit? Kieschnick will tell you that the LCMS is not involved. Then why did he have to take a deposition? Well, that is just a mystery that no one in the LCMS is going to answer. It is just as big a mystery as why Sherri Strand ordered Kieschnick not to answer the question from attorney Paul Nelson about Kieschnick’s conversation regarding the lawsuit with the LCMS Board of Directors.

Maybe Kieschnick’s legal victory over 90 LCMS clergy who sued him for voter fraud at the 2004 LCMS Convention convinced Sherri Strand she could file a suit in behalf of the California-Nevada-Hawaii District against four ladies for their church property and that they would cave in just like the 90 LCMS clergy. How wrong she was.

Repentance never crosses the LCMS mind. How could they be wrong? They are God’s church, and God is never wrong. Then again, God didn’t file the suit.

 

[LutheranandLonely]

sometimes you wonder if Kieschnick and Otten were wishing it was a knife they were twisting in each other's hearts instead of just their words..

 

[Chemnitz]

We all want Matt Harrison, but we also don't want Otten endorsing him as that is the kiss of death for anyone going against Kieschnick.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[DaRev]

How did the LCMS get involved in this lawsuit? Kieschnick will tell you that the LCMS is not involved. Then why did he have to take a deposition? Well, that is just a mystery that no one in the LCMS is going to answer.

It's not a mystery at all. The deposition was aksed for by the defense. If you want to know why they ordered it, ask them.

The word twisting and mistruths and misquotes coming out of this whole issue is truly sad. I'm not saying that there may not be some funny business going on here, but I won't take CN's word for it.

 

[Basil the Great]

I have no stake in this debate, but spent quite a while reading this lengthy and interesting discussion. This is all news to me and I do not know who is right and who is wrong. However, I do know when someone is "splitting hairs" and when someone is making a misleading statement. For the head of an organization (LC-MS) to claim that his group is not involved in a lawsuit, when clearly a sub-group of the LC-MS is directly tied to the lawsuit, well, his statement is very misleading at best and at worst he has forgotten the importance of telling the truth.

What kind of witness is he showing to the members of his denomination and to the rest of American Christendom and to non-Christians with such a statement? People in this day and age are tired of leaders, political or religious, who fail to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I highly doubt that any non-LCMS poster here who reads this thread can come to any other conclusion but what the LC-MS is tied to this lawsuit, if not directly, then certainly indirectly. What about the RCC? Should we say that the Vatican has no connection to the sex abuse lawsuits that are filed in each individual diocese? Humbug! If the Vatican has a connection to those lawsuits and I dare say most people think so, then the LC-MS is tied to this lawsuit.

My personal experience tells me that the members of the LC-MS are dedicated Christians. I wonder what they think about a leader who makes a misleading statement?

 

[DaRev]

I have no stake in this debate, but spent quite a while reading this lengthy and interesting discussion. This is all news to me and I do not know who is right and who is wrong. However, I do know when someone is "splitting hairs" and when someone is making a misleading statement. For the head of an organization (LC-MS) to claim that his group is not involved in a lawsuit, when clearly a sub-group of the LC-MS is directly tied to the lawsuit, well, his statement is very misleading at best and at worst he has forgotten the importance of telling the truth.

What kind of witness is he showing to the members of his denomination and to the rest of American Christendom and to non-Christians with such a statement? People in this day and age are tired of leaders, political or religious, who fail to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I highly doubt that any non-LCMS poster here who reads this thread can come to any other conclusion but what the LC-MS is tied to this lawsuit, if not directly, then certainly indirectly. What about the RCC? Should we say that the Vatican has no connection to the sex abuse lawsuits that are filed in each individual diocese? Humbug! If the Vatican has a connection to those lawsuits and I dare say most people think so, then the LC-MS is tied to this lawsuit.

My personal experience tells me that the members of the LC-MS are dedicated Christians. I wonder what they think about a leader who makes a misleading statement?

The LCMS as a corporate entity is not a party to this suit. The CNH District, which is its own corporate entity is named as a plaintiff. So when it is said that the LCMS is not a party to it, that much is true. Nothing misleading about that whatsoever.

As far as comparing this to the sex scandals in the RCC, that is even beyond apples to oranges and there is absolutely no comparison to be made.

 

[therubberball]

That article is so filled with misrepresentations, if it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

The only misrepresentations I have read recently on this case have come from the President of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, whose 5 page published deposition under oath has him claiming not to have known in advance of his District President's litigation, despite the massive expenditure of thousands of dollars in District funds, and despite the Missouri Synod's national corporate attorney being employed by the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the LCMS in the process.

It is clear that what is happening here is the Kieschnick administration's version of the Church Growth Movement (CGM)---put smaller congregations whose finances and demographics fall below St. Louis's corporate computer models out of business through denial of pastoral supply--and if that fails in a timely fashion, step up the process with litigation. The summary judgment for the defendants is now available online. We will see, won't we?

One thing is clear--Jesus said, "Feed my sheep," not "Sue my sheep."

Pope Leo X lives---at least until May 7th.

 

[DaRev]

The only misrepresentations I have read recently on this case have come from the President of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, whose 5 page published deposition under oath has him claiming not to have known in advance of his District President's litigation, despite the massive expenditure of thousands of dollars in District funds, and despite the Missouri Synod's national corporate attorney being employed by the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the LCMS in the process.

I am not a fan of the current synodical president. However, it must be noted that the synod president need not be directly involved in the business dealings of the individual districts. Each district is a corporate entity unto itself. Also, it must be noted that the litigation involves the CNH district, but it is my understanding that it was initiated by the congregation, not the district. The attorney, Sherri Strand, works for an independant law firm. Her law firm is under contract with the synod, and this is probably why her firm was retained by the congregation to handle the suit, because of their familiartity with how the synod operates corporately.

Do you know the amount that the district has spent on this case? If so what is it and where did you get it from?

It is clear that what is happening here is the Kieschnick administration's version of the Church Growth Movement (CGM)---put smaller congregations whose finances and demographics fall below St. Louis's corporate computer models out of business through denial of pastoral supply--and if that fails in a timely fashion, step up the process with litigation.

If a congregation cannot guarantee the salary and benefits of a full time pastor for a minimum of two years, the district has no obligation to give them a call list. It isn't the district or synod who sends pastors to congregations. The congregation is responsible for the call.

The summary judgment for the defendants is now available online. We will see, won't we?

Do you have a link?

One thing is clear--Jesus said, "Feed my sheep," not "Sue my sheep."

Pope Leo X lives---at least until May 7th.

The Eighth Commandment.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.​

What does this mean?--Answer.
We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

 

[BoC]

Interesting how you all said that Otten would be the kiss-of-death for Harrison. Seems like you all spoke too soon.

 

[DaRev]

Otten didn't really have anything to do with Harrison's election. Not many pay that much attention to him anymore.

 

[RadMan]

Certainly a product of your wishful thinking.

 

[DaRev]

Certainly a product of your wishful thinking.

No, just a fact.

 

[seajoy]

The most important point here is that Harrison is in - not who did/didn't help his election along. Let's just praise God for that!

 

[QuiltAngel]

The most important point here is that Harrison is in - not who did/didn't help his election along. Let's just praise God for that!

So right.