'Oakland Four' Sued by LCMS - Interview by Rev. Cascione (second half)

On September 1, 2009 Rev. Jack Cascione interviewed four ladies, known as the Oakland Four Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer, who are being sued personally by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for their church property. The suit is filed by LCMS attorney Sherri Strand at the direction of LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick.

The interview is in two parts and took place in the chancel of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Oakland California . After the current decline in property values, their church property, once worth 12 million dollars, is now worth 6 million dollars. Their court date is March 22, 2010.

They have hired the law firm of Duane Morris in San Francisco . So far they have spent $220,000 defending themselves. Their attorneys Paul Nelson and William Webster can be contacted at pdnelson@duanemorris.com and bwebster@wWebsterLaw.com. Pastor Jack Cascione of Redeemer Lutheran Church can be contacted at pastorcascione@juno.com. Sharon Bowles a member of the congregation who is being sued by the LCMS can be contacted at airshay2@cs.com .

The July 2007 LCMS Convention adopted Resolution 8-02A titled To Affirm Christian Resolution of Disputes. The resolution states: The use of the Synods conflict resolution procedures shall be the exclusive and final remedy for those who are in dispute.

The resolution also states the Synod and the COP have the right to sue congregations for their property if they try to leave the Synod as follows: In the agreement to live and work together, a member of the Synod is required to rely exclusively and fully on the Synods system of reconciliation and conflict resolution. Unless the dispute is one concerning property rights . . .

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Oakland Four
• Sharon Bowles
• Mary-Ann Hill
• Portia Ridgeway
• Celia Moyer
• sued

[ORLCoakland]

To naphiyl

From Rev. Jack Cascione

You are obviously a Kieschnick operative slanting opinion so the Synod can keep running up these ladies $220,000 legal bill while they try to save their church. Kieschnick is the one who promoted Resolution 8-02A in 2007 to stop Christians from suing each other. It also gave the District Presidents the right to sue people for their church property. The LCMS name is on the front of the lawsuit regardless of what you say.

[compenmatt]

naphiyl,

This is the statement which I asserted was a lie, "Now you encourage and support worship in an LCMS Church with a woman pastor of another denomination. " You made this statement about Jack Cascione. Do you really think this statement is true?? This statement is a blatentently false. Watch the video!!! I like how you quote the California Civil Code, after I encouraged you to look at the Scripture. You must be one of these synod approved "true Christians."

[compenmatt]

Partisan? Yes, these women are leaving the LCMS and taking the property with them. That has always been allowed under our synod's polity. Look up "liar" in a Bible Concordance. You should also reseach the terms you are accusing with: "hypocrite" and "ignorance." Find out how and when these terms should be applied according to Scripture, and decide if you are making a fair assessment. The women may not be leaving synod for the right reason (s), but, in any case, the synod's actions are wrong!!!

[jlspacifica]

Tainted, scripted and staged interview. Sharon B is a complete liar with no conscience, a greedy wench. The bibles in their hands are a real joke. I say sue, sue sue!

[arellanova]

REv. Jack Cascione. Kieschnick is gone. Can you forgive now?

[LutheranStudent]

It really is a shame. I feel for these ladies, even though I think they're a little misguided or at least uninformed. Lutheran synods should not be held together by litigation or other material benefits. Neither should they be torn apart by them. The LCMS should make it's case, then let the congregational council decide. Congregations should be free to leave with their $property$, and the Synod should be free to expel for sake of doctrine. This is how the gospel will remain front and center.

[stpaulphillip]

This is so sad.  I can't believe what is happening in the LCMS If I had known all the problems the "hierarchy" of the LCMS is causing I may not have recently joined.

[naphiyl]

You make bold statements implying you know something and instructing others to read this or that. Hundreds of Lutherans gave to purchase and maintain that property. Now, a small remnant wants to take that property as their own. Their desire is to remove it from the Church and do with it as they please. The LCMS is simply being responsible to the hundreds who paid for that structure. Please read California law on trusts and non-profit corporations.

[pilot4321]

I know of several situations off the top of my head where church property is owned by the LCMS. I am familiar with the bylaws as well. Do you know this is definitely not the case? If this local church does legally own their property then they should be allowed to leave free and clear. If the LCMS owns this property then the members would've to leave the property behind.

[compenmatt]

The property does not belong to the LCMS. It belongs to the local congregation. Please read the LCMS consitution and by-laws. You are confused regarding the polity of our synod. In our synod a congregation is free to leave synod whenever it pleases.

[pilot4321]

Cascione must like to stir the pot. That is indeed not Christian! Question: who legally owns this church? Their use of an "ordained" female is against the LCMS doctrines that the congregation in question signed onto. They should be expelled! Come on, they didn't know the LCMS position on female ordination? Our synod will have a new president soon, but if the church is legal property of the LCMS, why shouldnt the LCMS retain what they legally own? Would you not fight for what is yours? Romans 13

[siggests]

Here's how I look at it: the polity of the LCMS is such that there aren't really any congregations that are "members" of the body in the way most people would think of it. It's more a loose association of congregations who choose to draw from the same pool of clergy, men who ARE considered members of the LCMS. Congregations are free to leave as they appear they tried, but now synod is pulling some funny business to grab the land. Sick! That's not the LCMS I grew up in!

[siggests]

And Cascione didn't do such a hot job interviewing either. He allowed too many other issues to taint his message and it detracted from what he's trying to accompish overall. I say this even though I think I'd probably take his side on this issue.