LCMS Deceives Supreme Court About Its Doctrine
By Jack Cascione
By Jack Cascione
Christian News, November 14, 2011
The Apostle Paul exercised his right to appeal to Caesar, but that didn’t give him the right to deceive Caesar about his religion.
“The case, titled Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Et Al.”, centers on Cheryl Perich, formerly a commissioned-minister teacher at the now-closed Redford, Mich., Hosanna-Tabor school. Hosanna-Tabor is an LCMS congregation.”
http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19326
There is no question that under the US Constitution the government has no authority to regulate the hiring and firing practices of a church’s workers. The government can’t control who can and who can’t teach or preach in churches and church schools. Under the First Amendment the government has no authority to establish religion.
However, through a labyrinth of self-imposed by-laws, convention resolutions, CCM Opinions, and contractual agreements, the LCMS has caught itself in its own bureaucratic web and in violation of American labor laws.
The article by David Strand in the LCMS Reporter, and obviously approved by his wife Sherri Strand, who is legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, exposes the misinformation and confusion being argued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the intentional deception about LCMS doctrine and practice being argued by attorneys representing the LCMS.
This is the same obfuscation practiced by the LCMS in its lawsuit against four ladies in Oakland California for the church property of Redeemer Lutheran Church. If the court doesn’t know or understand LCMS doctrine, the LCMS sees no reason to tell the truth about what the LCMS believes.
The following are some of the issues raised in the November, 2011 LCMS Reporter:
1. “On Feb. 22, Perich [the teacher who was fired] appeared at the school and told Hoeft [the principal] she would sue Hosanna-Tabor if she was not reinstated. When the principal reminded Perich that suing the church would violate LCMS policy (all called workers in the Synod with complaints against their church employer are required to use the Synod's dispute-resolution process rather than going to court), Perich repeated her intention.”
Before we even look at the merits of the case, the LCMS has no business restricting the rights of an American citizen from using the courts as a condition of membership in the LCMS. This would mean the Apostle Paul should have been excommunicated for appealing to Caesar. Why is the LCMS acting as a legalistic cult? A man is a fool to give up his constitutional rights to work for anyone.
2. Justice Sotomayor (a judge I don’t like) asked an excellent question, What about, “. . . cases of suspected child sexual abuse or when a church uses an illegal substance -- peyote was mentioned -- as part of a religious rite. Would Perich have been free to report such things to civil authorities?”
Isn’t a church body that requires it members to surrender their rights as American citizens, as a condition of membership, raising suspicion about its requirement to administer its own internal system of justice? This is what the Catholic Church did during the Inquisition. Of course, it was all in the name of the Lord. The LCMS District Presidents and President Ralph Bohlmann trashed the old LCMS adjudication system that relied on lawyers because it was a sinful and worldly system. In other words, justice that follows the rules of evidence is bad for Lutherans and control imposed by an LCMS Council of District Presidents (COP) kangaroo court is good. Many US denominations are interpreting the First Amendment as a pretext to administer their own shadow government.
3. “Justice Alito asked Laycock [also representing the LCMS] if he knew of many cases ‘in which ministers have been fired for reporting criminal violations,’ to which Laycock said he knew of ‘only two’ that even remotely approached such circumstances.”
“The case, titled Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Et Al.”, centers on Cheryl Perich, formerly a commissioned-minister teacher at the now-closed Redford, Mich., Hosanna-Tabor school. Hosanna-Tabor is an LCMS congregation.”
http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19326
There is no question that under the US Constitution the government has no authority to regulate the hiring and firing practices of a church’s workers. The government can’t control who can and who can’t teach or preach in churches and church schools. Under the First Amendment the government has no authority to establish religion.
However, through a labyrinth of self-imposed by-laws, convention resolutions, CCM Opinions, and contractual agreements, the LCMS has caught itself in its own bureaucratic web and in violation of American labor laws.
The article by David Strand in the LCMS Reporter, and obviously approved by his wife Sherri Strand, who is legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, exposes the misinformation and confusion being argued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the intentional deception about LCMS doctrine and practice being argued by attorneys representing the LCMS.
This is the same obfuscation practiced by the LCMS in its lawsuit against four ladies in Oakland California for the church property of Redeemer Lutheran Church. If the court doesn’t know or understand LCMS doctrine, the LCMS sees no reason to tell the truth about what the LCMS believes.
The following are some of the issues raised in the November, 2011 LCMS Reporter:
1. “On Feb. 22, Perich [the teacher who was fired] appeared at the school and told Hoeft [the principal] she would sue Hosanna-Tabor if she was not reinstated. When the principal reminded Perich that suing the church would violate LCMS policy (all called workers in the Synod with complaints against their church employer are required to use the Synod's dispute-resolution process rather than going to court), Perich repeated her intention.”
Before we even look at the merits of the case, the LCMS has no business restricting the rights of an American citizen from using the courts as a condition of membership in the LCMS. This would mean the Apostle Paul should have been excommunicated for appealing to Caesar. Why is the LCMS acting as a legalistic cult? A man is a fool to give up his constitutional rights to work for anyone.
2. Justice Sotomayor (a judge I don’t like) asked an excellent question, What about, “. . . cases of suspected child sexual abuse or when a church uses an illegal substance -- peyote was mentioned -- as part of a religious rite. Would Perich have been free to report such things to civil authorities?”
Isn’t a church body that requires it members to surrender their rights as American citizens, as a condition of membership, raising suspicion about its requirement to administer its own internal system of justice? This is what the Catholic Church did during the Inquisition. Of course, it was all in the name of the Lord. The LCMS District Presidents and President Ralph Bohlmann trashed the old LCMS adjudication system that relied on lawyers because it was a sinful and worldly system. In other words, justice that follows the rules of evidence is bad for Lutherans and control imposed by an LCMS Council of District Presidents (COP) kangaroo court is good. Many US denominations are interpreting the First Amendment as a pretext to administer their own shadow government.
3. “Justice Alito asked Laycock [also representing the LCMS] if he knew of many cases ‘in which ministers have been fired for reporting criminal violations,’ to which Laycock said he knew of ‘only two’ that even remotely approached such circumstances.”
Laycock would have no information about many LCMS pastors have been threatened or removed from the roster for objecting to corruption and real-estate fraud in the LCMS.
4. “Justice Kennedy wondered why Perich, in a case of alleged retaliation, couldn't get a hearing. ‘She could have had a hearing,’ said Laycock. She could have had a hearing ‘in the Synod before decision-makers’ in the church's dispute-resolution process, a venue wholly independent from Hosanna-Tabor. Indeed, the Synod's Bylaws insist that ordained and commissioned ministers seek redress for complaints internally, within dispute-resolution, rather than taking matters to court. Perich ‘could have gone to the Synod,’ Laycock said. ‘She wasn't cut off from that. She decided not to.’"
Laycock didn’t reveal that the LCMS is in the habit of forcing its workers to use the new LCMS Dispute Resolution Process so that it can keep the dissident members in an endless round of appeals and/or interminable delays. This writer is still waiting for a case to be resolved that was filed against him by Dr. Waldo Werning in 2001. In December of 2005 a written statement from LCMS Secretary Hartwig said there would be a decision by January 2006. I’m still waiting.
In 2004 I complained at an LCMS Convention committee to Michigan Sixth Circuit Court Judge Gene Schnellz (inventor of the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process) that one of the Synod’s handpicked Reconcilers wrote that she didn’t deal with religion. Schnellz refused to consider the complaint and said he didn’t care what she wrote. Telling Perich to go to Dispute Resolution is the LCMS way of showing dissidents the back door. The District Presidents on the final panel reserve the right to overturn any ruling they don’t like. The LCMS is now governed by COP hierarchy.
Laycock deceived the US Supreme Court when he told them that the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process is LCMS doctrine. It is not Lutheran Doctrine. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not a matter of faith or salvation, but the Justices don’t know that any more than they know if the LCMS believes in Santa Claus. The Justices also don’t know that the official position of the LCMS in the Augsburg Confession is that only called Pastors are Ministers of Religion. Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order. “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”
4. “Justice Kennedy wondered why Perich, in a case of alleged retaliation, couldn't get a hearing. ‘She could have had a hearing,’ said Laycock. She could have had a hearing ‘in the Synod before decision-makers’ in the church's dispute-resolution process, a venue wholly independent from Hosanna-Tabor. Indeed, the Synod's Bylaws insist that ordained and commissioned ministers seek redress for complaints internally, within dispute-resolution, rather than taking matters to court. Perich ‘could have gone to the Synod,’ Laycock said. ‘She wasn't cut off from that. She decided not to.’"
Laycock didn’t reveal that the LCMS is in the habit of forcing its workers to use the new LCMS Dispute Resolution Process so that it can keep the dissident members in an endless round of appeals and/or interminable delays. This writer is still waiting for a case to be resolved that was filed against him by Dr. Waldo Werning in 2001. In December of 2005 a written statement from LCMS Secretary Hartwig said there would be a decision by January 2006. I’m still waiting.
In 2004 I complained at an LCMS Convention committee to Michigan Sixth Circuit Court Judge Gene Schnellz (inventor of the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process) that one of the Synod’s handpicked Reconcilers wrote that she didn’t deal with religion. Schnellz refused to consider the complaint and said he didn’t care what she wrote. Telling Perich to go to Dispute Resolution is the LCMS way of showing dissidents the back door. The District Presidents on the final panel reserve the right to overturn any ruling they don’t like. The LCMS is now governed by COP hierarchy.
Laycock deceived the US Supreme Court when he told them that the LCMS Dispute Resolution Process is LCMS doctrine. It is not Lutheran Doctrine. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not a matter of faith or salvation, but the Justices don’t know that any more than they know if the LCMS believes in Santa Claus. The Justices also don’t know that the official position of the LCMS in the Augsburg Confession is that only called Pastors are Ministers of Religion. Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order. “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”
Identifying LCMS school teachers as ministers of religion is a recent LCMS invention that is not supported by the Synod’s own official doctrine. In other words, Perich is not, nor has she ever been a minister of religion.
5. “‘It's sobering that a relatively quiet and local dispute should not only find its way to the Supreme Court but also carry such potential for adverse effect upon the work of the church,’ said Synod Secretary Rev. Dr. Raymond Hartwig. ‘To me it lends serious weight to our Synod's bylaw declaring our dispute-resolution process to be the exclusive and final remedy when disputes arise among us. Our reconciliation process keeps our disputes within the brotherhood where they belong, according to 1 Corinthians 6.’"
According to the LCMS Handbook, the LCMS is not a church, it is a corporation. Only the congregations are churches. At no time does the Bible make 1Corinthians 6 a mandated process, any more than the Bible requires that we wash feet like Jesus did. Paul’s request that church members resolve their own differences rather than go to court is a request based on faith, not a contractual requirement as a basis for membership in the church. The LCMS used to teach that it was sin to buy life insurance. People who bought life insurance in the 19th century were excommunicated.
According to Hartwig’s interpretation of the Bible, if you are born Amish you can’t use electricity, if you are born Baptist you can’t drink wine, if you are Apostolic you can’t dance, if you are born Muslim you must follow Shariah Law, and if you are born in the LCMS you can’t use the courts and the Supreme Court is supposed to recognize these religious curiosities as exceptions to rights of American citizens who belong to these churches. With this interpretation, who would be so foolish to desire a loss of constitutional rights by joining a religious denomination? Why not be a free American?
6. “No, we're not saying that, said Kruger. We're saying the ‘government's interest in preventing retaliation against those who would go to civil authorities with civil wrongs is foundational to the rule of law.’"
Kruger represents an administration that should be voted out of office, but Kruger’s statement is outstanding. How many governments do we have in this country? God save us from despotic theocracy and the re-imposition of pre-Reformation papacy. Will the Justices agree that church discipline can include putting people on the rack, because they agreed to it, as definition of the separation of Church and State?
The Supreme Court is not aware of the LCMS suit filed by Sherri Strand against four women in Oakland California for their church property. The LCMS denies it is suing anyone, but the name LCMS is listed more than 30 times in the suit.
The California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod filed suit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the church property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA (case number RG07363452). Synodical Sectary Hartwig and CCM designate Dr. Wil Sohns refused to answer questions during depositions by pleading the First Amendment. Synodical President Kieschnick was instructed by Strand not to answer if an LCMS District is part of the LCMS.
Attorney Paul Nelson’s brilliant defense won the suit for the four women but the Synod still refuses to settle the case. The LCMS spent more than a million dollars in tax exempt funds suing these four women whose personal legal bills are now over $750,000. Judge Whitley’s written opinion in favor of the women is outstanding.
What if the Supreme Court Justices knew that LCMS doctrine/legalism teaches that it is a sin to sue the Synod according to a 2007 LCMS Convention Resolution, promoted by Kieschnick and the District Presidents? However, the same Resolution states that it is acceptable practice for the Synod to sue its own members? In other words, in the LCMS God says you can’t sue them but God also says they can sue you.
What if the Supreme Court Justices knew that LCMS doctrine is whatever the LCMS officials decided to tell the court what is convenient at the time? There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution forbidding a church from changing its doctrine every day.
Historically, the Supreme Court has had no difficulty in banning bigamy in Utah no matter how many church members agreed to it. How far will the Supreme Court go in granting religious denominations exemptions from the U. S. Constitution in name of the separation of Church and State?
I don't know what you have against the LCMS, but this blog post of yours doesn't make much sense. If you read the amicus brief the argument is clear and persuasive: the LCMS has for many years now worked under a religiously-motivated doctrine that elected church workers should resolve disputes within the church. This is clear from reading the 2004 LCMS handbook, as well as a myriad of other sources available on the LCMS website. If you're upset because it's not also in the Lutheran confessions or the Bible, that's another matter. The LCMS is not guilty of lying to the court just because it disagrees with your personal opinion about what should or should not be the sources for church doctrine.
ReplyDelete