Postscript
to Bishop Gary L. Hansen - North West Lower Michigan Synod
With
a cover letter dated 23rd February 2000 I sent you a number
of materials including a document containing the research
depicted both above and in the accompanying paper. I have
to this date not received a reply from you regarding this
material. Furthermore, in situations such as at the North
West Lower Michigan Synod's 2000 Assembly when a pastor of
the synod, also familiar with the aforementioned research,
quoted from Article 14 of the Apology to the CA contrary to
historical accuracy, you made no attempt to correct his actions.
In fact, the opposite has been the case as exemplified by
your expressed desire that I keep quite on the matter of CCM.
Given your knowledge of the inaccuracies related to CCM paragraph
11 and the apparent desire to perpetuate these inaccuracies,
I would be grateful if you could give me reasons why I should
not consider you to be an accomplice to the grand deception
contained in CCM.
I
would be grateful if I could have your considered response
by 30th October 2001. I reserve the right to publish any response
or any part of any response to this letter and the enclosed
paper in any manner which I deem to be appropriate. I also
reserve the right to interpret any lack of response in a way
or in ways congruent with statements given above.
Postscript to Bishop Callon W. Holloway Jr. - Southern
Ohio Synod
On
Saturday, 4th March 2000, you were present for an information
session on CCM at Upper Arlington Lutheran Church in the Columbus,
Ohio area. During that session the research described above
and in the accompanying paper was presented. Since that time
I am not aware that you have made any efforts to have the
inaccuracies in CCM paragraph 11 addressed or to have rectified
the way in which the ELCA's 1999 Churchwide Assembly was misled
by these inaccuracies. I am sure that you would agree that
intolerances in the ELCA, particularly along the lines of
race, are unacceptable. Nevertheless, your apparent lack of
actions on this matter not only supports the introduction
of the principles of seventeenth century Anglican, religious
intolerance into the ELCA but also the inaccuracies used to
facilitate that introduction. Given your knowledge of the
inaccuracies related to CCM paragraph 11 and the apparent
desire to perpetuate these inaccuracies, I would be grateful
if you could give me reasons why I should not consider you
to be an accomplice to the grand deception contained in CCM.
I
would be grateful if I could have your considered response
by 30th October 2001. I reserve the right to publish any response
or any part of any response to this letter and the enclosed
paper in any manner which I deem to be appropriate. I also
reserve the right to interpret any lack of response in a way
or in ways congruent with statements given above.
Postscript
to Bishop Robert A. Rimbo - Southeastern Michigan Synod
On
Saturday, 26th February 2000, Pastor Lloyd Buss and Pastor
Bob Seltz from the Southeast Michigan Synod attended an information
forum on CCM at University Lutheran Church in East Lansing,
Michigan. The essentials of the research discussed above and
in the accompanying paper were presented at that forum. At
a similar forum on Sunday, 4th June 2000, in Westland, Michigan
both pastors were present. In his opening remarks supporting
CCM, Pastor Buss turned to Article 14 of the Apology to the
CA in a Book of Concord and interpreted Article 14 congruent
with the text of CCM paragraph 11. Again, in a similar forum
on Sunday, 1st October 2000 in Livonia, Michigan, Pastor Seltz
tried to defend the depiction of history given in CCM paragraph
11. Thus, despite having been informed of the inaccuracies
of CCM paragraph 11 both of these pastors from the Southeast
Michigan Synod's ecumenical team knowingly and deliberately
sought to give inaccurate information to members of the ELCA.
I would be grateful to hear your reasons why I should not
consider you as the synod's chief ecumenical office to be
accomplice to the grand deception, which CCM represents, as
perpetrated by those acting in your stead?
I
would be grateful if I could have your considered response
by 30th October 2001. I reserve the right to publish any response
or any part of any response to this letter and the enclosed
paper in any manner which I deem to be appropriate. I also
reserve the right to interpret any lack of response in a way
or in ways congruent with statements given above.