What Is Happening In Your Synod?

In our conversation you asked if I knew anything about what has happened to Rev. Bruce King and his parish. Having known Bruce for several years I called him to ask him personally what had happened. The following is what he related to me over the phone.

I. The Basic Issue

As Rev. King put it, "There is revealed in this congregation the split personality of Synod regarding close communion." It has been a practice since the mission's founding that relatives of members who belong to the ELCA were permitted to commune at the altar of Valley Lutheran. The founding mission pastor was Rev. Robert Muhndahl, currently a vice-president of the Minnesota South District. Rev. King is the third pastor to serve this mission congregation and practiced Synod's policy on close communion. There arose a division within the congregation over this. At one point Rev. Muhndahl was invited to speak to the congregation as the district VP and former pastor regarding this issue. At this meeting Rev. Muhndahl stated that what Rev. King was holding to was proper but to the "right" of most LCMS pastors. He stated that he, Rev. Muhndahl, was in the middle of the spectrum. [you can imagine what this said to those opposing Rev. King!] There was also at least one meeting with President Seitz and Rev. King with Rev. Pragman and Rev. Kothe present regarding the communion issue.

II. So Get Rid of the Pastor on Unscriptural Grounds

In the spring of 1998 the Vice President of the congregation, along with the guidance of the Circuit Counselor Ben Lubbens, EM., brought charges of Wilfull Negligence against Rev. King. These charges were dismissed by the Elders of the congregation as having no grounds. At the May voters meeting the group headed by the Vice Chairman of the congregation voted to change the Constitution of the Congregation to include reasons to remove a pastor that of "Lack of Confidence". This was passed as this group had a majority in the Council and the congregation. [This move had to have been a part of a plan to be able to remove the pastor for non-doctrinal reasons. It had to also be a part of a plan to obtain the property/assets by a simple majority vote without determining who was faithful the doctrines of the LCMS or not and thereby had a right to the property/assets.]

III. Events Prior toThe November 15 Voters Meeting.

On the Friday before this voter's meeting James Pragmann, Seitz' assistant, had tried to contact the Chairman of the Congregation since there was something that "He needed to know" prior to the meeting. He was unable to make contact with him so the Vice-Chairman met with the chairman over coffee on that Friday. At that meeting of the two the Vice-Chairman had informed the Chairman that a group within the congregation had already formed a new congregation called Hope Lutheran Church and had a charter in hand but not signed by anyone. The reason they had not signed it was so that they could vote in the meeting to be held on the upcoming Sunday.

Pragman was able to contact the Chairman that Friday for the purpose to apologize to him for not telling him about the formation of Hope Lutheran Church and their charter. [Pastor King , as well as I, wondered how long Pragman/Seitz had known about this and secondly, who guided these people to do these things?]

With this information , Pastor King, the Chairman and those behind them met on Saturday evening to try to figure out what they could do. For this opposition group claimed that they could take all the assets/property if it was voted at the meeting since it is not a doctrinal issue dividing them. [Remember the "Lack of Confidence"?] With this Pastor King and others decided to propose a motion to divide the property evenly so to simply let each side go its own way.

IV. The Meeting

A "professional" parliamentarian was hired to run the meeting. I am not sure who did this.

At the meeting the first item was to go directly to "New Business". This motion passed 66 to 44. At this all knew that Pastor King and those faithful to him had only 44 votes. The next motion was to transfer all property to Hope Lutheran Church.

With this the Chairman offered a substitute motion to split the property and assets evenly. This was voted down. It was moved to divide the property according to the votes on each side. This too was voted down.

Pastor King made mention to me that this parliamentarian did not take notes of the meeting nor did the Secretary do so. This is most unusual. But minutes were produced after the meeting. Those minutes did not record any substitute motions made nor votes taken. At this point it was brought to the floor that this was a doctrinal issue. The opposing side it was not and voted that it was not a doctrinal issue. This, of course, passed.

At this point the Chairman and Pastor King asked for a caucas to try to determine how far this group would go in taking everything. Upon returning the motion to transfer the property was brought to the floor and wasa passed 66-44. At this a motion to adjorn was made and passed.

V. Following the meeting.

After the meeting the group went to the Bank to see about the status of their property. At that time the Vice Chairman and the Financial Secretary had already signed the documents transferring the property to Hope Lutheran Church. Pastor King said this went against the motion that they themselves passed at the meeting. For the motion as written in the minutes said that the Council would transfer the property. The Council included the trustees. But the trustees, who were in support of Pastor King, were excluded in the transfer process. They did not sign any papers.

I asked Pastor King if anyone was serving this group as a pastor. He believed that Rev. Merle LaBahn of St. Paul, Prior Lake was serving as their pastor. Pastor King and those faithful to him are now worshipping in the basement of the Chairman's home.

Important Point: Valley Lutheran had a $78,000 loan with the LCEF. Technically they still owe this debt as they still exist as a congregation even though they have no building. [ I would suggest that Pastor King inform LCEF that they are not going to make any more payments and to take back their building!!!! Let the LCEF fight it out!!!]

What is most sad is the involvement of the District. It is most important to note that Pragman acts entirely on behalf of Seitz and that Seitz is totally responsible for whatever Pragman does. This was publicly stated in the MN South District Newsletter. But the question that I ask is: Why was this done? For what purpose or gain? What our church lost was :

1. Thousands of dollars invested in a mission congregation
2. A mission congregation, for they can not be affiliated with the LCMS without a constitution or based on their doctrinal position.
3. A faithful pastor and Synod's investment in him and the cost to replace him.
4. Morale within the District and Synod of its faithful pastors.
5. Assurance that faithful pastors will be defended.

What was gained? NOTHING.

Paul, please post where appropriate.