Bearing False Witness

Although the Ten Commandments include:  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. That does not seem to stop the false witness of the Dean of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

Please read the article in the Church Times "Dismissed pastor rebuts charges".

The article states:

Dean Xruch disputes this interpretation of events. The members of the panel were drawn from a "completely different organisation"- the Council of Lutheran Churches, he said; and the panel members were from churches other than the LCiGB.

This is a completely false and misleading statement. The Council of Lutheran Churches is the Lutheran Council of Great Britain. It is the same organisation. It is the organisation that employed the Dean as General Secretary. The organisations own website uses both names. The organisation is registered at the Charity Commission as The Lutheran Council of Great Britain. The Lutheran World Federation lists the organisation as The Lutheran Council of Great Britain.

The Dean continues:

He explained: "The Appeal Board considered two charges against Mr Dearhamer, and set aside one of them on the balance of probabilities, without totally exonerating him. The other charge, of serious insubordination against his bishop, was upheld on the grounds that he had made it effectively impossible for the bishop to meet him, and he had explicitly rejected episcopal oversight.

The Pastor, the Trustees of the LCiGB, the Bishop and the Appeal panel all agreed that Pastor had been completely cleared of the first charge made by the Bishop. 

The Appeal Panel completely cleared the Pastor of the second charge made by the Bishop. If a charge is "set aside" it means that the person is cleared of the charge. "Without totally exonerating him" is false witness and an attempt to mislead. A sad and pathetic attempt to mislead.

The final charge of Insubordination to the Bishop "was upheld on the grounds that he had made it effectively impossible for the bishop to meet him" Note: there is nothing to suggest that the pastor refused to meet with the Bishop, did not try to meet with the Bishop or that the Bishop needed to meet with the pastor - ONLY that the pastor made it "effectively impossible"  What does that mean? How could that be? Could it be that the Bishop set ground rules that made it impossible for the pastor to meet the Bishop? Was it a trap so the Bishop and Dean could make allegations against a pastor that they had decided must be removed contrary to the congregation that called the pastor?

The truth is the only allegation that was upheld was Insubordination to the Bishop because the Trustees of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain did not allow the Appeal Panel to consider all the testimony and evidence given by the pastor.

The Church Times article quotes the Dean: While the Appeal Board acknowledged that the Lutheran communion had varying traditions of episcopal authority

The Appeal Panel (or Board as the Dean has renamed it) did not merely acknowledge that the Lutheran Church had varying traditions but agreed theologically with the theology of the accused pastor that the a Bishop does NOT have the authority claimed by the current Bishop and Dean of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

Again, the Panel was made up of Trustees of the Lutheran Council of Great Britain / the Council of Lutheran Church - fellow Trustees with the current Bishop who is a Trustee of the Lutheran Council. And the Trustees that employed the Dean as General Secretary. 

If the process of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain was fair / just / ethical / legal than why did the LCiGB have to spend thousands and thousands of pounds in legal fees?