Surprise Wedding
by Ronald J. Marshall, pastor of First Lutheran Church of West Seattle, WA
Many Seattle neighbors of Central Lutheran Church were surprised Saturday, December 13, 1997. They got an invitation in the mail from the church to a wedding for two men on January 31, 1998. It had been long known that Central's senior pastor, Jonathan C. Nelson, and the congregation approved of gay weddings. No one, however, remembered there ever having been a widely distributed public announcement beforehand. Also many were shocked to read the last line of the invitation:"Children warmly invited."
Over the next four weeks the ELCA's bishop Donald Maier of the Northwest Washington Synod was repeatedly asked to stop it, censure it or otherwise disapprove of it. Many were surprised by his initial reaction. He criticized the protesters for not leaving the matter to him to handle privately. He also complained that they were not open to learning from Central why they were having the wedding. He wished the protesters had talked with the people of Central instead of making a public fuss of it. It was pointed out that Luther's Large Catechism says public violations are to be handled publicly (LC. 1.284). But these old wise words fell on deaf ears.More Surprises
Many also were surprised to learn that the bishop would not stop the wedding. In his January 30, 1998 written statement he said bishops of the ELCA were "not authorized to intervene in the affairs of a local congregation, except under very extreme circumstances," and same-sex weddings did not qualify.
But most of all, many were surprised that the bishop did not disapprove of the wedding publicly. All that his public statement said was: "Central Lutheran Church commits itselfto extend ministry to homosexual persons as it does to any other person who confesses the same faith. Thus the congregation finds it appropriate to bless the union of a homosexual couple who covenant to live together in a life-long relationship based on the love they receive through Jesus Christ."
Many thought he was bound by CB93.1 0.25, passed by the Conference of Bishops, October 1993, which in part said: "We, as the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry .... " But, in a letter from Presiding Bishop, H. George Anderson, we learned CB93.1 0.25 was only "a word of pastoral advice and counsel," which need not be followed. Our bishop handled it in his written statement by quoting it with neither approval nor any comment at all.Worth Knowing
Neither our bishop, the synod council nor the presiding bishop referred to "Sexuality: Some Common Convictions," passed by the ELCA Council November 9, 1996, which defined marriage as a covenant between "a man and a woman," thereby excluding polygamy and same-sex unions. This failure surprised many as well.
This "wedding" brought two things to light worth knowing. First, same-sex weddings are not prohibited in the ELCA. You may find this shocking, but it is true. It is a mysterious, unpublicized fact. Second, ELCA members wanting to prohibit same-sex weddings need to endorse CB93.10.25 and "Sexuality:
Some Common Convictions" by passing resolutions to that effect at their synod assemblies.
Leaving this second matter for your bishop to implement would appear to be a mistake. This is because no ELCA bishop has as yet been known to disapprove publicly of a same-sex wedding occurring in his or her synod.A Better Way
As of this writing, at least two synods have already opted for a better way to build the unity of Christ's church, than by adopting the new "Called to Comrnon Mission" draft which would surrender the theological commitments of our Lutheran statement of faith, the Augsburg Confession (Article VII)-see the piece by Gordon Selbo in this issue. We include their resolutions as models for other memorials.Southwestern Washington Synod:
Resolved that the Southwestern Washington Synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to affirm a Lutheran-Episcopal ecumenical agreement that is mutually respectful of the full breadth of both traditions, and that does not require the ELCA to adopt the historic episcopate, but retain its flexible structure with one ordained ministry and an empowered ministry of the priesthood of all believers, and be it further
Resolved that the Southwestern Washington Synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to reject any proposed agreement which compromises on these issues which are so vital for the mission of the church, and be it further
Resolved, that the voting members of the 1999 Churchwide Assembly elected from Southwestern Washington Synod be given a copy of this memorial as the will of this assembly.Southern California West Synod:
"Therefore Be It Resolved that the So. California West synod memorialize the 1999 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA to affirm a Lutheran Episcopal Concordat that is mutually respectful of both traditions of the Christian family of which we are all a part, and that does not require the ELCA to adopt the Historic Episcopate as a mandatory form of church governance."In a requested response from FaCt-POINT. Bishop Don Maier replies:
Ron Marshall has a unique ability to set reality on edge and put a questionable construction on what he hears from/about other people. Examples:
Paragraph #1: ELCA neighboring congregations did not really receive an invitation to the ceremony at Central Lutheran Church. They received a courtesy copy of Central's monthly newsletter. The newsletter included an invitation addressed to other members of Central.
Paragraph #2: a) "Bishop Maier. .. was repeatedly asked ... " That must refer to three congregational councils sending the same request to me. First Lutheran Church of West Seattle, Pr. Marshall's parish, was one of the three.
They copied and slightly revised the original request addressed to me and the Synod Council.
b) "He criticized the protesters for not leaving the matter for him to handle privately." Truth: I criticized a certain retired pastor who managed to get a copy of the first letter addressed to me and began distributing it to many others before it was delivered by mail to my office. That individual was not listed among those receiving copies of the letter. I criticized his actions. The church is not edified by that sort of activity.
c) "He also complained that they were not open to learning from Central. .. " I don't recall complaining about anything. I remember asking each of the three protesting congregations to nominate some of their members to enter into a facilitated dialogue with some members f
d) "These old wise words fell on deaf ears." I am not deaf. Pastor Marshall was the one who quoted Luther's Large Catechism. I just happen to disagree with his intention in quoting them.
Paragraph #4: My public statements amounted to a background document (quoted by Marshall) and my address to synod clergy assembled in convocation. Marshall does not report that I told the clergy: "Clearly that was not an official service of the church. It has no standing in the ELCA. It does not establish a legal relationship. The relationship does not constitute a marriage in any legal sense." Marshall is disappointed that I did not publicly chastise Pro Nelson and Central Lutheran Church. He has no knowledge of my private conversation with Pr. Nelson, the couple, and the congregational president.
Paragraph #5: a) Marshall quotes the resolution of the Conference of Bishops (CB93: 10:25) only in part. That resolutions ends in this way:
"Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue to dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister."
b) Marshall quotes part of a sentence from a private letter written by Bishop Anderson to a third person (the same one whom I referred to in Paragraph #2-b.) who had written to Anderson asking for him to censure me. How does Marshall account for having that letter? Was he copied on it? Does he have Anderson's permission to quote him in small parts? He certainly offends me.Reconciled in Christ
[ Ed. Note: Certain congregations in the ELCA which offer membership and unconditioned sacramental privileges to behaviorally active homosexuals have named themselves" A Reconciled in Christ congregation." Bishop Jacobson throws light on what the meaning of this sacred phrase should incl/.)de.}
"Reconciled in Christ," the commendable motto of Lutherans Concerned, cannot meC;inreconcHed on the basis that "I'm OK, you're OK," but on the basisthat''I'm forgiven, you're forgiven."There must at the very minimum be arecognition that for many homosexuals being "in Christ" will involve them in a process of healing and growth inwhicl1 their homosexual compulsions will recede as their brokenness is mended. Without this recognition, we are not reconciled in Christ the Redeemer, but [we are} in a conspiracy of silence in whiCh we both agree to ignore the truth in the hope that it will somehow disappear if we do.
Some Christians may treat homosexual brothers and sisters as the Pharisee treats the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. But Lutherans Concerned turns homosexua.ls who accept their condition into the Pharisee in that story of Jesus, rather than encoura.ging them and us both to join the tax collector in praying for God's mercy on us sinners. How can they go home justified when they have that attitude?Bishop J. R. Jacobson, in The Canadian Lutheran.
Dear Editor:
I gave the last FOCL POINT to a woman in our congregation who was asking about FOCL. She took it home and read the Garton piece [on abortion] one evening last week. Yesterday we met at lunch service schedule and she confided that Dr Jean Garton shook her to the core. It seems that she had four (!) abortions between the ages of 16 and 23, and has never dealt with it in any way ... always shoving the issue aside and spouting pro-choice slogans to justify her actions. Garton had such an effect that she is resolved to seek counseling and says that she now considers herself to be pro-life. It was a very emotional lunch, let me tell you. Tears adorned the chicken enchiladas (both plates). One life changed, George. Praise God! Thank you for your courage in publishing what's RIGHT. In my humble opinion, Davy Crockett was correct when he said, "Make sure you're right, then go ahead; just do what's right, and God'il do the rest." Well done, Davy.
Name withheld on request.READER RESPONSES
Dear Editor:
Please accept the modest contribution enclosed from a retired bishop to encourage the good work you are doing. I especially appreciate the articles on "The Concordat" in the voI.8,#3 issue ..
Dr & Mrs Edward A Hansen, Minneapolis, MNDear Editor:
Could you send my daughter the last issue of FOCL-POINT, with Berquist's article? Excellent! Keep up the good work!
Rev Norman Olsen, Starbuck, MNDear Editor:
We are so grateful for the efforts you are making to preserve the integrity of the Lutheran Church. It sometimes seems to us that our present power structure in the church is trying to obliterate the Lutheran name and confession. Please accept our contribution and use it to support the good work.
Rev & Mrs Theodore E Guetzlaff, Lakeville, MNDear Editor:
Do keep up the conservative witness-we do need your voice!
Rev David Redman, Fon Du Lac, WIDear Editor:
Many thanks for your very fine and informative articles. God bless you for your efforts to keep us informed about the state of our church. We desperately need you to help keep our church body from completely forsaking its commitment to the Word Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone. We are happy to continue to support your efforts.
Mr & Mrs 0 W Welch, San Mateo, CA
The defeat of the Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat last summer left those who desire a demonstrable unity in the body of Christ-but who know that true doctrine cannot be surrendered without peril-with a responsibility to inform the Church and to seek solutions that do not compromise the faith the ELCA professes. FOCL-POINT is offering a number of articles, authored by distinguished leaders in the ELCA, toward that end .. This is the third in the series:Enough is Enough from the CONCORDAT to CCM
by Gordon Selbo
At last summer's National Assembly in Philadelphia the ELCA was asked to vote on ecumenical proposals involving four church bodies. Ofthe four, three ofthem - Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ - agreed to accept us as we are, to work with us, share with us, and manifest as far as possible in a visible way the oneness we possess in Christ. We promised the same to them. Only one, the Episcopal Church, insisted in advance that we make fundamental changes in our theology and practice. The ELCA made no such demand.
Thus the Episcopal Church, not the ELCA, placed a condition on the concept of "full communion" and a considerable roadblock in the path of Christian unity. In a strange twist of logic some have tried to blame the ELCA for an alleged inhospitable anti-ecumenical action in its failure to adopt The Concordat of Agreement.
As the time for the Assembly approached a growing number of responsible voices in the church began to be heard, challenging some major provisions ofThe Concordat. It was an impressive list of highly respected theologians and church leaders whose integrity, experience, and commitment to ecumenicity could not be questioned. Their firm opposition made it quite clear that there were serious substantive issues that needed attention, and that a real consensus within the ELCA could not be reached.
Each of us has a "take" on what happened in Philadelphia - the pre-Assemhly promotion, the floor debate, why the vote went as it did, etc. Whatever the case, the LutheranEpiscopal proposal did not gain the required two-thirds vote for approval.The Problem
What was the problem? As we all know, it was the precondition set by the Episcopal Church. They have termed it a "non-negotiable" item. The condition: that we adopt a form of church structure based on the theories of the "historic episcopate" and "apostolic succession." This theory invests their bishops and pastors ordained by the bishops with an authority presumably traced back by the laying on of hands through an indeterminate number of past centuries. The full legitimacy of their ordained ministry rests in part on that theory. They do not take it casually. Nor should we. For them it is essential for full communion.The Shaping of Common Mission
A new revision of The Concordat has been drafted and will be voted on in 1999. It goes by the name, "Call to Common Mission" (CCM). In it, the very same issue surfaces. That issue has not been resolved. No surprise, for the three-member writing team was told in advance that any new version of the Concordat must include the "historic episcopate.". Presiding Bishop H. George Anderson stated that without it any proposal would be "dead on arrival." So Prof. Todd Nichol, one of the three, sadly dissented and rightly stated that this "precluded discussion among Lutherans ... of the matter most controversial and divisive among Lutherans." Amazing!
So in spite of some "touching up" and changes in wording, there is no essential difference on the chief issue in the new CCM proposal. We will still be required to make changes in our ELCA Constitution which would lock us into a church structure and hierarchy considered to be essential for full communion and valid ministry. Yet the need for such a structure is nowhere to be found either in Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions, and it is foreign to the history of post-Reformation Lutheranism. To this day not one American Lutheran body accepts or operates by the episcopal pattern as defined in the proposal. And no Lutheran Church in the world considers it essential to ministry.
The Lutheran Church has always stated that the power and authority of its ministry and the office of bishop rests in the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments nothing more, nothing less. In no way does it rely on an outward form as to who lays hands on whom in an obscure historical succession. Martin Luther, with his emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, objected fiercely to the development of ranks and human authority in the church which by his time had grown, through the medieval period, to include popes, cardinals, bishops, monks, holy orders, etc. He lamented the claim of the 'papists' of his day, "who boast of their apostolic succession. The church exists only where the Word is, and where there are people who believe the Word ... We reject the conclusion when they say, 'We are the successors of the apostles in our office; therefore we are the church.' The people of God are not those who have the physical succession but those who have the Promise and believe it."
It is interesting to note that neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches, the arch-purveyors of church hierarchy, acceptthe Anglican and Episcopal orders as valid.
As the basis for church unity, the Lutheran Church's major statement of faith, the Augsburg Confession, states in its oft-quoted "sat is est" clause: 'To the true unity of the church it is enough (satis est) to agree concerning the doctrine of the gospel and the administration of the Sacraments" (Article VII). Why must there be an add-on, an additional legalistic requirement of human origin? This is not a trivial matter. We need to protect jealously and zealously the true nature of ministry and church unity.
In my judgment the revised Concordat is self-contradictory - or there is a strange play on words. On the one hand the new CCM states, "The Episcopal Church recognizes that the ministers ordained in the ELCA or its predecessor bodies are and have been fully authentic." On the other hand it offers a temporary and conditional suspension of its "Ordinal of 1662." That rule says that pastors must have "received such ordination with the laying-on-of-hands by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders." It makes the "proper" ordination an absolute requirement, as soon as The Concordat is adopted. In effect it says, "You may be authentic for your own purposes but you're not authentic enough-not for us!" We Lutherans are authentic, but not qualified by their standards. So all future ordinations must be done the "right" way. Those words may sound harsh, but it is difficult to read the Concordat and its CCM revision in any other way.
The insistence of the Episcopal Church at this point also contradicts the claim made in the text of the Concordat: "Diversity is preserved ... neither church seeks to remake the other in its own image." At best that's a half-truth.Still No FULL COMMUNION
When one reads the reworked Concordat closely it is apparent that even with its adoption, "full communion" will not be quite realized- not until many years from now when all ELCA pastors will be ordained into the historic episcopate. It is only the beginning of a process and it uses the expression "coming into being" to explain that important qualification. For a number of years into the future there would be two groups of Lutheran pastors, those who have been ordained into the historic succession and those who have not.
One Pacific Lutheran Seminary professor calls the words of The Concordat, "a grinding insult to ordained Lutheran pastors who thought our ordination to Word and sacrament constituted entrance" into the ministry of the Gospel, and he asks, "Why add a second criterion such as how the Episcopal bishops see me?"
The new Concordat strives to make itself more palatable to Lutherans by suggesting that even though the Episcopal Church makes the historic episcopate essential forfull communion and joint ministry, we as Lutherans are free not to think of it that way. To me this posits a tongue-in-cheek loss of integrity on both sides, and not even a healthy compromise. To say on the one hand, "We agree that the ministry of bishops (historic succession} will be the future pattern shared between the two churches," and yet not to have to believe in it, is playing games with religion. It is not the way to do true ecumenism.
Make no mistake. The issue at hand is not a question of whether or not we love Episcopalians (as somebelieve it or not-have tried to make it). Nor is it a matter of who is or is not ecumenically minded and concerned for the unity of Christ's church. The issue is: Is it enough to recognize Christian unity among the churches if they agree on the Word and the administration of the Sacraments? Further demands challenge the doctrinal foundation of our Lutheran Church (Augsburg Confession ), and threaten the mission of the church. More is certainly less, in this case.A Way Forward
Can we offer a question and a suggestion?
The question (addressed to our Episcopal friends): Why cannot we simply accept each other as we are? Full communion would be so easily attained. We may differ, as we do with other churches, in liturgical expression, organizational structure, or in a variety of other ways. But true ecumenism does not exist when one says to the other, "You must become like me before we can attain the unity for which Christ prayed."
Suggestion: One commentator writes, "There remains a critical need to develop an ecclesiological argument for the office of bishop" (Lutheran Forum Newsletter'). So we say, build upon the ELCA's 1993 National Assembly approved statement that there exists only one form of the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Lutheran Church-not three distinct orders of deacon, pastor and bishop. Let the ELCA present its grass roots membership with a thoroughly researched study on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession. Then we will be ready for a specific ecumenical proposal. The two issues should be separated; clarification and a much more informed decision would ensue.
This Time Around
We can be grateful that this time around the replacement document, "Called to Common Mission"(CCM), comes with the invitation that it be discussed throughout the church. Also, committee member Prof. Nichol's official rejection of the CCM has been appended as one of the discussion documents. That sounds like the trust level is rising.
But have you seen the CCM? Only synod assembly delegates have, and it was thrust on them at the assemblies without prior opportunity to ponder it. What a contrast to other documents, like the infamous Human Sexuality statement, which was sent to all pastors and congregations. To see this draft you have to put out your money to pay for it.
The attempt to shelter the grass roots from the burden of having to decide the merit of churchwide proposals has a rationale '. So synod assembly delegates are instructed, "No delegates will be present for the assembly. Voting members are not delegates ...● The people of this church ... are not sent as delegates .... Rather, they assemble as duly selected members of this church with voting responsibilities for governance and elections on behalf of the synod." (from an interpretation of ELCA Constitution 8: 11, as issued by ELCA Secretary, Dr. Lowell Almen, for synod and church-wide assemblies, and regularly used since 1990 to instruct the voters.)
Essentially this means that each synod assembly and each church-wide assembly has no accountability beyond itself whatsoever. They are not accountable to their congregations, or to their conferences. They are not even accountable to themselves as a synod, since the synod's existence disappears like the grin of a Cheshire cat When it is over. And the national assembly is obligated to nobody-again, not even itself since it disappears into thin air when the last Amen is said. It is hard to imagine an organization, purporting to be based along democratic lines, that would more easily be able to engender a high level of distrust within itself than by means of such a structure. if that understanding of irresponsibility continues to be practiced and to prevail as to the meaning of the ELCA as a church body, our loyally held common faith and purposes must inevitably continue to erode.An Application for CCM
Dare we draw out the implication, when it comes to adopting or rejecting the CCO at the next church-wide assembly? It would be: it doesn't count a tinker's dam whether the ELCA, down to the last man and woman, discusses and re-discusses the CCM proposal. Their voices, Combined in synod resolutions or individually sounded, are totally irrelevant. The national church-wide assembly will vote its own mind, and the "voting members" will be held accountable to no one for their action.
No wonder "Higgins Road" keeps covert the addresses of all the "delegates" to the church-wide assembly. What if the Holy Spirit put something into their heads before the full-blown rhetoric of the assembly could get cranked up?Other Relevancies
To conclude: Surfacing during these years of Lutheran-Episcopal discussions has been a variety of issues - more or less important depending on one's outlook but nevertheless relevant and to be given some thought. Such as:
Is the Christian world today, or the unbelieving world for that matter, looking for a more hierarchical church structure? Is this the wave of the future for the church?
What effect would the Concordat have on a broader ecumenical potential, including inter-Lutheran fellowship?
Is there evidence in the Episcopal church, or church history in general, that the historic episcopate has resulted in service of the Gospel and protection of Christian doctrine?
Will worldwide and American mission be enhanced by full communion? Should we be concerned that the Episcopal church has suffered significant internal dissension in recent years, that its membership has fallen by thirty percent over the past few decades and its world mission program radically reduced?
Do not adequate avenues of cooperation exist at present without the restrictive provisions of the Concordat?
What changes will need to be made in the ELCA constitution?
What will be the financial cost of the proliferation of bishops and the proposed "Joint Commission" of the two churches?
To what extent, if any, will the autonomy of the ELCA and its congregations be limited? May all of us in the months ahead engage these issues objectively, in candor and good spirit, ever mindful that we are eternally blessed to be a part of Christ's church, the communion of saints.* Gordon Selbo, erstwhile President of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans, has served as an ELCA pastor, home missionary, and a member of the faculty of Augustana Academy. 1f
But Can You Trust Them?
So untrusting was the process engaged in, that when the original draft of the Concordat was presented to the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue committee for approval, it came with the imperative: "This may not be discussed with anyone. Not even your wife!" To the question from one of the members, "You mean it's a secret?" the answer came, "As secret as the Confessional."
Organizations work only when the internal trust level is high. Include the church; include the ELCA. For all of its first decade the ELCA has been burdened by a deficiency of trust. "Higgins Road" has been a term of disrepute.
The current runs both ways, however. Does Higgins Road trust the grass roots? In regard to the promotion of the Concordat of Agreement between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church, the evidence was not reassuring. A single major article in the Lutheran was devoted to objections to the proposal. The opposition minority report (one additional negative committee vote would have cashiered the Concordat) was never offered to the ELCA members or Assembly delegates for appraisal. In at least one Synod Assembly where protests were raised that opponents were not heard in a balanced debate from the platform, the Bishop allowed that he had no responsibility to present any formal disapproving opinion, since the Church was bringing in the proposal for passage.Dear Friend,
We are sending you this letter of solicitation for support for FOCL a bit early this year Although the circulation of our newsletter FOCL-POINT has increased to almost four and a half thousand, donations to cover the increased costs have not kept pace with the cost of printing and mailing. Consequently, we find ourselves in a dilemma. Should we cut FOCL-POINT back to four pages or simply not print the fourth (winter) issue this year? In either case, with the critical question of Lutheran-Episcopal relations ahead for the ELCA, we feel this is not the time to cut back on our publication.
You have been receiving FOCL-POINT for some time - many of you for years. You are aware of our endeavor to bring you thoroughly researched articles on issues and challenges currently facing the ELCA - on proposals for Full Communion with the Reformed and Episcopal Churches, on challenges to the Christian family such as posed by homosexuality, on the issue of abortion, on the centrality of the Holy Scripture as the source and norm of all Christian faith and practice, and on the Lutheran Confessions as a true exposition of our doctrine. These articles by theologians and pastors who are scripturally sound, confessionally accurate and practically workable, have had as their purpose a call to the church and each of us in it, to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, the only way to salvation.
Dr. Morris Sorenson, Jr., former Assistant to the Bishop of the ELCA, wrote recently, "I have been reading FOCL for some time and make a contribution to the organization each year. I do so because of a commitment to the emphases that you and others of FOCL are bringing to the church. I thank you and your colleagues for your contribution." Dr. Robert Marshall, former President of the LCA, writes, "I have appreciated receiving FOCL POINT." Mr. Richard Rogers, former CEO of one of America's largest pharmaceutical firms, writes, "I surely share the concerns it addresses relative to our mission as the Body of Christ. My prayer is that FOCL and its followers might ultimately have a positive effect on bringing the ELCA back to the confessional integrity of its predecessor bodies." We could go on. Perhaps you feel as these persons do?
In addition to our Newsletter, two scholarships are granted each year by FOCL to congregational pastors for advanced theological studies from a biblical and confessional perspective. From the responses we have received, these scholarships are meeting a real need within our church. Many scholarships are available--but very few for conservative pastors actually serving in parishes. Rev. Ken Sundet Jones writes, "Your happiness in informing me [that I have received a scholarship] has no comparison to my joy in receiving it. Here in the middle of a dark and icy Minnesota winter it was a shot breaking into our lives." This fund is a MATCHING FUND. Every dollar FOCL receives from donors IS MATCHED up to $500 by the Lutheran Brotherhood. Every dollar you give means two dollars for the fund!
We, therefore, appeal to all of you who feel that FOCL is serving a worthwhile purpose, to pray about it and then make a contribution for FOCL POINT and perhaps also to the Salis Est Scholarship Fund. Our need is your need. Our challenge is your challenge. Our mission is your mission. This is your way of joining us in our endeavor to keep the Church firmly rooted in the centrality of Christ and His Word and faithful to our Lutheran Confessions.Dr.Herbert Schaefer President, FOCL