Unless one concludes that the presence of gays and lesbians always leads to sexual abuse of children or that our church intends to tolerate such abuse or tolerate other types of sexual misconduct about which there is no disagreement; then you are leaping way too far out into space.
You've entirely missed my point, but I've come to expect that. It doesn't matter what you or I believe is intended by anything. It's what an attorney believes was potentially intended and how that will be argued. In a lawsuit you'd be free to argue what you just did. At this point I would think a sharp lawyer would say "the culture of the church set a tone for ignoring policies and procedures because a CWA asked their bishops to do precisely that. A church with permission to ignore its own policies is a church that cannot protect it's children, etc., etc.. " The jury might then look at you and, remembering what happened in the RC church, decide the Lutherans can't be trusted to protect their children either. What will it cost for something like that to go away? Are you willing to take that chance to find out?
As I said, I intend to seek legal counsel about this - and someone other than my wife. She rolls her eyes when I talk about this and I won't type her legal opinion as to our potential exposure.
I also noted that the congregation in Newark, CA was made nearly bankrupt by their experience and that was before any of these newer innovations came about. The Synod was protected because Howard had a regular call and, from their perspective, was living within the boundaries of V&E. What happens next time?
MD Brian
