Skip to comments.Police Arrest Pastor During His Sermon
Posted on 02/07/2006 4:45:46 AM PST by freepatriot32
CHICAGO - Some members of a Lutheran parish on Chicago's far South Side said they are outraged police arrested the Rev. Jimmy McCants in the middle of his sermon.
McCants, 54, has been the focus of a dispute between rival factions at Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The church's board of directors told police the board fired McCants on Christmas Eve, and a woman affiliated with the church signed a complaint against him for trespassing on church property, said Chicago Police spokeswoman Monique Bond.
But a Lutheran Church official said the board fired McCants without going through the proper steps to resolve disputes.
"They have removed a pastor inappropriately," said the Rev. William H. Ameiss, president of the Northern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. "The real tragedy is the ministry gets put on hold for a power struggle."
McCants was not handcuffed when police led him out of the church Sunday. He was booked on a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing and released in lieu of $1,000 bond.
"My church is the house of the Lord, and I had not committed a criminal act," McCants said. "We're going to see what the lawyers say. I intend to go back next Sunday."
hmmm i guess her bible must be missing 1st Corinthians
1 Corinthians 6:1-7 (King James Version)
1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
I wont argue the merits of the case, The story doesnt include enough information to do so. It would seem though that even the police should have enough common sense to wait until after the Mass to make an arrest. Either that or do it before the Mass began.
i just find it very wierd that he was supposedly fired christmas eve(how very christian of them) and now february 6th he gets arrested how did they not know he was still preaching for almost two months?
Oh those wacky Lutherans!!!!
An experienced police dept. would have treated it as a civil dispute and told the complaintant to get a civil "kick out" order of eviction. Then they could proceed with their rear ends covered.
Uh oh... LCMS...
The sad part is that church/congregational disputes can be some of the nastiest out there. I was an Elder (Presbyterian USA) and there was a big skermish between two groups of members, each wanting a different style of worship service. It was rough, but the Lord did see us through that troubled time.
Sadly, the LCMS is cracking up in many places over the changes that Pres. Kieschnick and his minions have made in doctrine and practice. There is much conflict in many congregations that are only quasi-Lutheran, due to poor instruction in doctrine, and the vanishing faction that want to preserve Lutheran doctrine and worship. But having the pastor arrested in the middle of his sermon is truly a new low for the LCMS, and the PR gurus will hate to see this in print. They prefer that the givers in the pews remain totally ignorant of the severe fault lines in the church that should be obvious to everyone by now.
Satan is rubbing his hands in glee at another confessional church body that has fallen for his tricks.
If his paychecks stopped Dec 24, why would he still be preaching at that church?
It depends on what parish one belongs to. We left the ELCA last April for our local LCMS parish. Best move we ever made (And, you think the LCMS has problems? Not by comparison!).
As for this story, I heard about it last night at our Evangelism Board meeting. It seems the parish tried to remove the pastor in contravention of the constitution (either parish or synod...that wasn't clear). It wasn't stated how the Synod got involved but I'd put my money on the pastor.
"hmmm i guess her bible must be missing 1st Corinthians"
I'm sorry to say it but the Lutheran denomination stopped following Biblical teaching years ago. I would not be a bit surprised if the woman who filed the complaint had not cracked a Bible in years and has no idea what it says on the subject.
Whoa! I understand there's a lot of discord in the LCMS these days about changes in practice, worship, etc. that Kieschnick has ushered in. As rancorous as such changes may be, they really only deal with the traditions of men: not a big deal in the eternal perspective.
But has the Kieschnick administration really been messing with doctrine as well?! That's another matter entirely. That would be very disturbing, indeed. A false understanding of God would be tantamount to worshiping a false god. Yikes!!!
The congragation was bound by constitution to inform the District of any disciplinary action taken with the Pastor.
The synod is big on following procedures. A congregation cannot sack a Pastor over a dispute without going through the District first.
BTW the LCMS is very touchy on going outside the church to resolve disputes. Very unbiblical and anti-Christian to do so. I would not be surprised if the District didn't come in and had a discipline session with the woman who signed the complaint against the Pastor. Or in the very least had a session with the Elders to mete out discipline.
If the District President says that the congragation didn't follow correct procedures then my bet is that they will have to retain the Pastor until the District resolves the dispute.
You don't know much about the Missouri Synod, do you?
Keep in mind that the citation you used has specific intentions...XPians going to court to determine proper doctrinal solutions.
In this case, I belive it may apply but it is a "trespassing" case and - on the surface - tangentially touches on the doctrinal dispute at Zion.
My assumption is that the parishioner has good enough connections inside the "Chicago Machine" (TM, Richard Daley, Inc.) to have this done.
This is a sad story.
"The real tragedy is the ministry gets put on hold for a power struggle."
and the meek shall inherit the earth
The Ddoctrine of the Call in the LCMS is quite well defined. Pastor McCants was (and intends to continue) fulfilling his duty to God, who placed him in that congregation.
reminds me of the little chorus we used to sing:
They'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love
Good thing he wasn't Muslim. We'd have firebombings by now.
Many who (wittingly and unwittingly) share Satan's POV are quite gleeful at this situation.
Pastor McCants is a solid Word and Sacrament man (i.e., "confessional") and doesn't cotton to the sheep being in charge of finding their own pastureland.
Sadly, and in the end, Pastor McCants will be convinced to "move on" and the congregation will not be properly disciplined.
There are those who have said that JK isn't changing doctrine only aligning practice with the current cultural understanding of who and what the church should be.
Many (myself included) cry "lex orandi, lex credendi" as he makes changes to the ancillary offices (women in leadership positions and performing pastoral acts in the services) as well as promoting allegiance to by-laws and policies above Scriptural requirements.
There is dejection in the air as we move forward...
I have heard from more than one ELCA parishoner that it has become Lutheran Lite over the years. LCMS seems to be drawing them away.
All that is true, and doctrine and practice are inextricably bound together.
However, that may or may not be directly related to this particular incident.
That's good to hear. In that case, then my guess is that the dispute probably does indeed have something to do with a widespread problem in the LCMS today: a pastor who wants to be Lutheran and a congregation that doesn't. In those situations, it is almost always the pastor who loses, usually being forced out. That scenario has played out, and is playing out, hundreds of times across our synod over the last 25 years, and has only gotten worse the last five years under Kieschnick & Co.
However, sometimes even confessional men do stupid stuff, so I can't make a particular evaluation in this particular case.
Do ya think that maybe God is telling him that it is time to leave?
Maybe he just stopped listening a long time ago.
Doctrine and practice, like style and substance, are not so easily distinguished or separated. In view of the fact President Keischnick publicly (i.e. in practice) finds little fault with placing God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on the same level as Allah or some other gods says a great deal about the doctrine (or lack thereof) he would espouse. The fact he goes so far as to persecute those who refuse to see the one true God stand in line as if He were one of many gods waiting for a turn at the microphone is also a clue.
The Church needs Pastors who are not afraid to speak the truth. Not mealy-mouthed politicians who think it is their duty to please everybody. If this South Chicago Pastor is a confessional Lutheran, he will ultimately be blessed for the faithfulness he demonstrated by the grace of God, whether or not it appears differently to us on the surface.
I left an ELCA parish for the Roman Catholic Church last year. It was the right decision. Lets be blunt about it most of the issues Martin Luther had with Rome have been solve a long time ago.
An interesting point but it doesn't make proper sense when it was the Board of Directors of the congregation that told him to leave.
In the Lutheran church, the pastor is called by God, not "hired" by a congregation nor "placed" by a bishop.
Now, if we believe that the BoD of Zion speaks as God, then we should all (you, me, etc.) be on the Southside right now, scraping our knees bloody on the pavement.
Correspondingly, the congregation of Zion may be the ones who are hard of hearing, N'est pas?
Book marked for later!
It is obvious to me that someone isn't listening to God, whether it is the pastor or the congregation I cannot say. I am reminded of Christ's words when confronting the accusers of the woman caught in adultery.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..."
That bit of Scripture is "whooooole nuther" conversation!
So does anyone know what the real cause of complaint was here? I used to live in Chicago, and I think have even been to this church once (a while ago).
The only reason I can see that the lady in question got the police involved is that she either didn't want to take it to the district president (likely) or the district president didn't answer the way she wanted.
And what was that about women doing pastoral roles? Where was that? That is the Rubicon for me. Once the LCMS start ordaining women I will be forced to leave.
The 62nd Synodical Convention of 2004 (at which I was a voting lay-delegate...fat lotta good I was!) passed a resolution that provided for women to read Scripture lessons (teach) and to distribute the Sacrament in the Divine Service. The rationale was that these "activitites" were actually man-made and therefore open to all (Galatians 3:28).
this resolution also allows for women to hold postions such as President/VP as well as ELDER in a congregation.
Dude...need any help packing up your hymnals?
Allegiance to bureaucracy called Synod is required...
hmm trespassing in a place that is in theory open to everyone in the public. interesting.
"How the heck did that get passed without a murmur?"
Well, there was a murmur... but now you see how poorly catechized the laity are. Sophistry rules the day!
Just look at Ameiss' statement. Is he saying that Synodical rules haven't been followed or is he saying that, simply, it was inappropriate to have him arrested at that time?
"Here endeth the lesson. Now I needeth a lawyer."
It was "Book 'em, Danno" during the Book of Daniel...
From the quote, I don't know. But it sounds like he (Ameiss) was more upset that forms were not followed.
Thus my tagline....
shaking my head ping.
It would be hard to say whether they acted correctly without knowing if the pastor was teaching false doctrine. There is a lot of false "church growth" fad doctrine coming right from the president of the Synod nowadays, it's likely they didn't figure on getting a fair hearing.
This could shed some light...Anyone familiar with this stuff?
1:15 PM "Walther's Influence on African Americans" by Rev. Elder McCants
McCants is a black LCMS pastor, educator, and radio broadcaster. He will speak about the unique contribution and importance of Walther's "Church and Ministry" on Afro-American Lutheran Congregations. All too often, black congregations in America are subject to hierarchical and even tyrannical clergy control. Historically, no church body has given its lay people more freedom under the Gospel than the LCMS.
Here's some more background...
Why Was The LCMS Unprepared For Election of A Gay Episcopal Bishop?
President Kieschnick writes as follows on August 7, 2003:
"As President of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, I am profoundly saddened and deeply disturbed by the decision of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. to give its approval to the election of an openly homosexual bishop."
Pastor Elder McCants has pointed out that President Kieschnick didn't quote one Bible passage to support his comments about the Episcopal Church in his August 7, 2003 news release.
I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out whether McCants or the higher up President Kolachke or whatever his name is, is the more concerned about correct, biblical doctrine.
Pastor McCants Asks Black Leadership Some Hard Questions
Will they reply?
... quoting from the letter:
On page 14 of The Reporter, it is stated, Doctrinal Reviewers did not appear to take seriously the relationship between theology and culture. What is the relationship between culture and theology? I did not know that there was one, and as Richard Mueller said on June 25, 2000, in a Bible class I was teaching, The only relationship between theology and culture is one of hostility.
Culture cant and should not change our objective theology, which comes from Gods objective Word, but our theology should change our culture and all cultures. Culture is what we do, what we like and value. It is man centered. Our theology is Christ centered. If we change our theology and make it culture, it is no longer objective but subjective, synergistic and man centered which is inimical to our gracious and loving God who showed us His love in Jesus who died and rose to save us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.