Pastor takes option to resign call. Complainants were unconstitutionally stripped of member voting rights and punitively shunted into a fictitious class of membership.
Throw these people out of Synod. That "congregation" is a disgrace. We should figure out how to help the faithful remnant that tried to save their congregation (I think of mainly the three who were illegally stripped of voting rights) but outside of those people everyone should be removed without delay.
I have had something very similar happen in my church. A group of our members, myself included, was basically excommunicated by our pastor and the elders. When I met with the pastor and a representative from the Synod, I told them that they were in violation of our church constitution and the Synod' s discipline process. I was told by the Synod's representative that a pastor could do whatever he wanted. Because of our resistance to the pastor's unwarranted behavior, he agreed to resign and he was moved to another district in the LCMS. We used to call that the " dance of the lemons."
Whoever told you that a pastor can do whatever he wants is in serious dereliction of duty. And the "resign and get moved" is nothing but a Synod coverup of sinful behavior. I believe things like this happen more often than the LCMS would like to admit. We, too, observed blatant violations of a church constitution, blocking of members from the church's social media, and obvious slander become a "lively discussion" in the church minutes, and that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Ellen, I agree that it was an attempt to cover up the unchristian, unconstitutional behavior of the pastor. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common occurrence in the LCMS. The Synod employee, who is also a pastor, just flat out lied in an attempt to protect the pastor instead of worrying about the members of the congregation.
Remember: Rev. Matthew Becker was never actually disciplined. He resigned before any discipline was carried out (and now, we all have to forget that he was teaching false doctrine for 20 years). Well, the same script is playing out again. Different names, same dodge, same lack of accountability. LCMS = undefeated
Exactly. Pattern recognition is the key to not being surprised.
The Synod bylaws concerning the Dispute Resolution process explicitly state in Article 1.10.2 "No person, congregation, or agency to whom or to which the provisions of this dispute resolution process are applicable because of their membership in the Synod may render this procedure inapplicable by terminating that membership during the course of the dispute resolution process."
So, a pastor accused of publicly teaching false doctrine or scandalous behavior, may choose (and ought to in many cases) to immediately resign his call and remove himself from the roster, but the process doesn't end.
1 Timothy 5:19-21, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality."
A pastor accused of public sins must be investigated impartially for the sake of God's elect, and those results made known, "in the presence of all". The investigation must either substantiate the charges or exonerate the pastor. If he taught falsely or sinned, the light of God's word must be shone upon those actions that the ones he led astray may be restored. If he was innocent, then that too must be made clear, that the elect who wrongly accused may repent, and the doctrinal position of the church may be clear to all parties.
The damage done to the church by such accusations must be addressed if reconciliation is to occur. "That the rest also may fear." That is, that other errorists in the church - either those holding to the same false doctrine, or those who have besmirched the good name of a pastor, may properly fear the Lord.
There were quotes from a community conversation in the first version, but it was not clear anyone got permission to post those. Unwise to post without permission, more unwise to do a dirty delete and edit.
The lack of clarity and candor in how this article was sourced and revised is concerning. You’ve acknowledged above that the quotes were in the article, then were taken out to help facilitate a “peaceful resolution”; however, there was no written acknowledgement until now that a substantial edit was made. The inclusion of the quotes without any on the record sources or confirmation of permission received for anyone quotes is also concerning if this Substack is intending to document news ethically.
I agree that we should add an editorial note about the edit and will do that. Thank you.
I disagree that we need on-the-record sources to validate the content. There were multiple witnesses and eventually the full record may emerge to validate the accuracy of the information.
We have no interest in playing gotcha games. Our intent from the start was private discipline, restitution, and reconciliation. The authorities had nearly four days to deal with the issue before the first article was published.
As a member of another SED congregation, this is deeply troubling.
I love Ad Crucem for reporting on this despite all the pushback they get. Way to go for doing the right thing.
.
Throw these people out of Synod. That "congregation" is a disgrace. We should figure out how to help the faithful remnant that tried to save their congregation (I think of mainly the three who were illegally stripped of voting rights) but outside of those people everyone should be removed without delay.
I have had something very similar happen in my church. A group of our members, myself included, was basically excommunicated by our pastor and the elders. When I met with the pastor and a representative from the Synod, I told them that they were in violation of our church constitution and the Synod' s discipline process. I was told by the Synod's representative that a pastor could do whatever he wanted. Because of our resistance to the pastor's unwarranted behavior, he agreed to resign and he was moved to another district in the LCMS. We used to call that the " dance of the lemons."
Sorry to hear that, Dennis. I'm glad you prevailed.
Whoever told you that a pastor can do whatever he wants is in serious dereliction of duty. And the "resign and get moved" is nothing but a Synod coverup of sinful behavior. I believe things like this happen more often than the LCMS would like to admit. We, too, observed blatant violations of a church constitution, blocking of members from the church's social media, and obvious slander become a "lively discussion" in the church minutes, and that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Very sorry to hear that, Ellen. It is, unfortunately, too regular an occurrence.
Ellen, I agree that it was an attempt to cover up the unchristian, unconstitutional behavior of the pastor. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common occurrence in the LCMS. The Synod employee, who is also a pastor, just flat out lied in an attempt to protect the pastor instead of worrying about the members of the congregation.
Very sorry that this happened to you. May the Lord bring about justice and may they come to repentance for this sin.
This is extremely unsurprising.
Remember: Rev. Matthew Becker was never actually disciplined. He resigned before any discipline was carried out (and now, we all have to forget that he was teaching false doctrine for 20 years). Well, the same script is playing out again. Different names, same dodge, same lack of accountability. LCMS = undefeated
Exactly. Pattern recognition is the key to not being surprised.
The Synod bylaws concerning the Dispute Resolution process explicitly state in Article 1.10.2 "No person, congregation, or agency to whom or to which the provisions of this dispute resolution process are applicable because of their membership in the Synod may render this procedure inapplicable by terminating that membership during the course of the dispute resolution process."
So, a pastor accused of publicly teaching false doctrine or scandalous behavior, may choose (and ought to in many cases) to immediately resign his call and remove himself from the roster, but the process doesn't end.
1 Timothy 5:19-21, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality."
A pastor accused of public sins must be investigated impartially for the sake of God's elect, and those results made known, "in the presence of all". The investigation must either substantiate the charges or exonerate the pastor. If he taught falsely or sinned, the light of God's word must be shone upon those actions that the ones he led astray may be restored. If he was innocent, then that too must be made clear, that the elect who wrongly accused may repent, and the doctrinal position of the church may be clear to all parties.
The damage done to the church by such accusations must be addressed if reconciliation is to occur. "That the rest also may fear." That is, that other errorists in the church - either those holding to the same false doctrine, or those who have besmirched the good name of a pastor, may properly fear the Lord.
Thank you, well said.
Curious as to why this post was edited? It read differently yesterday morning, I didn't see anything wrong with the original post.
We were asked to remove some information that could impede a peaceful resolution.
There were quotes from a community conversation in the first version, but it was not clear anyone got permission to post those. Unwise to post without permission, more unwise to do a dirty delete and edit.
We did have permission, but there was a misunderstanding.
Whose permission was received? All speakers? Or just permission from a select attendee? There appears to be a bigger misunderstanding.
What is your actual concern?
The lack of clarity and candor in how this article was sourced and revised is concerning. You’ve acknowledged above that the quotes were in the article, then were taken out to help facilitate a “peaceful resolution”; however, there was no written acknowledgement until now that a substantial edit was made. The inclusion of the quotes without any on the record sources or confirmation of permission received for anyone quotes is also concerning if this Substack is intending to document news ethically.
I agree that we should add an editorial note about the edit and will do that. Thank you.
I disagree that we need on-the-record sources to validate the content. There were multiple witnesses and eventually the full record may emerge to validate the accuracy of the information.
We have no interest in playing gotcha games. Our intent from the start was private discipline, restitution, and reconciliation. The authorities had nearly four days to deal with the issue before the first article was published.