Testimony concerning Pr.

Fuehrer at the October 25, 2015 trial:

I.

Irrelevant Testimony pertaining to Pr. Fuehrers alleged actions

A. Pastor said I didnt have the Holy Spirit
i. Pr. Fuehrer did not say this, but the witness was not allowed to be cross
examined for clarification or scrutiny.
ii. There are times in which people should be told they dont have the Holy Spirit
(1 Corinthians 12:3). Therefore, even if true, that does not establish any
neglect of the duties of the office. Perhaps Pr. Fuehrer was legitimately
exercising the binding key which is a duty of the office.
B. Pastor told a new widow that her husband is in hell because he was not a Lutheran
i. Pr. Fuehrer did not say this, but the witness was not allowed to be cross
examined for clarification or scrutiny.
ii. This would not be evidence of willful neglect insofar as it demonstrates that
Pr. Fuehrer does fulfill his duty of ministering to widows.
iii. If it were true, it would rather be evidence that he taught false doctrine, which
is a valid charge for removal if the pastor, once admonished, persists in it.
Regardless, it was not a charge laid against Pastor Fuehrer in the motion
before the assembly.
C. Pastor Fuehrer refused to work with or be mentored by the former pastor
i. Pr. Fuehrer did not say this, but the witness was not allowed to be cross
examined for clarification or scrutiny.
ii. No specifications were given as to how this judgment was madewhether Pr.
Fuehrer actually was verbally offered these things and verbally refused; or
whether this was simply the felt opinion of the accuser, which is likely given
the nature of impact statements.
iii. The charge doesnt say why Pr. Fuehrer refused synergy and mentorship.
Perhaps the former pastor was giving bad advice or urging unbiblical
teachings and practices, in which case Pr. Fuehrer is obliged to obey God,
rather than men (Acts 5:29).
iv. This does not constitute Willful Neglect of the Duties of the Office because
working with and being mentored by the former Pastor of the congregation
though perhaps a wise practiceis not a God-given duty of the office.
D. Pr. Fuehrer said the former pastor did a disservice to the congregation
i. Speaking critically of a former Pastors ministry, however willful, is not a
neglecting of duties. A pastor has no God-given duty to unconditionally
approve of a former pastors ministry.
ii. Moreover, if the former pastors ministry was worthy of criticism for false
doctrine and unfaithfulness, it is the duty of a Pastor to criticize him, even as
Paul called out Peter for selective fellowship with Jews (Galatians 2:11).
E. The Ambassadors of Reconciliation said, Our visitation has revealed that Pr.
Nathans Pastoral Ministry is lacking in humility and manifest love for the people.
i. This represents a personal conclusion of the reconcilers without any
specifications to explain how the conclusion was drawn.
ii. Personal evaluations are opinions and are not considered evidence unless they
are submitted as expert witnesses and introduced as such. The Ambassadors

would have to be shown to have expert training in detecting physical, mental,

or emotional instability to draw such a conclusion with evidentiary authority.
iii. The Ambassadors were never authorized by the congregation as an
investigation committee. Neither were they officially sent by the DP as the
ESs Oct. 24 letter seems to suggest. They were summoned by the Elders and
PPC and their services were paid for. They were brought in for advice and
recommendations, not as a tribunal to investigate and assign guilt.
iv. If the Ambassadors were part of informal reconciliation proceedings as per the
LCC Bylaws 8.19(c), they are vested with no authority to assign guilt in the
dispute, but only to try and reach reconciliation between the parties on an
informal level. If that doesnt work, then it moves to objective formal
proceedings as per 8.23, not to ending the relationship as the reconcilers
advised
v. The DP never initiated formal proceedings, thus the reconciliation process is
either incomplete, or determined obsolete in this situation.
vi. Reconciliation is not vested with the authority to deal with disciplinary issues;
therefore, they have no authority to rule as to whether a pastor or anyone is
guilty of egregious misconduct such as willful neglect of duties.
a. Thus reconciliation may deal with a wide range of disputes, but
matters which may lead to suspension ofand possible expulsion from
membership in LCC, are not typically dealt with under this ministry
of reconciliation.(Bylaws 8.07(a)).
vii. Even if the charge is true, lacking in humility and manifest love for the people
may be neglect, but not willful neglect and inability to perform the duties of
the office.
F. The Elders Report said that, in his reconciliation visits to peoples homes, Pr.
Fuehrer continued quote the scriptures against people and manifested unwillingness
to change.
i. This is not true. Pr. Fuehrer deliberately avoided quoting scripture in these
visits because he was told it would offend. In fact, the Elder who
accompanied Pr. Fuehrer on these visits, at the time, spoke well of Pr. Fuehrer
and how the overall visits went.
ii. This represents a personal conclusion of an Elder without any specifications to
explain how the conclusion was drawn.
iii. Personal evaluations are opinions and are not considered evidence unless they
are submitted as expert witnesses and introduced as such. The Elder, if hes
going to state more than specific facts, would have to be shown to have expert
training in detecting abusive and stubborn behavior to draw such a conclusion
with evidentiary authority that others can reasonably rest their consciences
upon.
iv. Even if this were true, quoting the scripture, however willful, is not
negligence or inability to perform the duties of the office. In fact, it is a duty
of the office. It is also clear that the reason a person feels hurt when they are
told the scriptures is because of their own stubbornness and resisting of the
Holy Spirit, thus provoking retaliation against the speaker (Acts l7:51).
G. Pr. Fuehrer denied multiple people communion.

II.

i. Although he would if he had to, Pr. Fuehrer has never actually denied Holy
Communion to a baptized Christian.
ii. Even so, there are times when a Pastor has a duty to deny Holy Communion,
even to baptized Christianswhen they persist in false doctrine. Therefore,
even if this charge was true, could just as well be evidence of performing the
duties of the office rather than neglecting them, by using the binding key of
the ministry (Matthew 16:19, 18:18).
H. Pr. Fuehrer is planning to immediately implement Closed Communion without
proper teaching and instruction
i. This is not true. Pr. Fuehrer was planning to immediately implement Closed
Communion along with immediate proper teaching and instruction.
ii. When Pr. Fuehrer expressed that he was going to begin this teaching and
instruction immediately, the Parish Planning Council of Immanuel (PPC) and
the Lethbridge Circuit Counselor (CC) put him on an immediate leave of
absence, preventing him from teaching and instructing.
iii. The only way for Pr. Fuehrer to teach at length before implementation of
Closed Communion would require either cancelling communion until the atlength teaching is completed, or else persist in the false doctrine and sinful
practice of open communion, which would be grounds to remove him from
office.
iv. It is absurd to suggest that Pr. Fuehrer was being negligent in his approach to
implementing Closed Communion if that is the only option available to him
that is not sinful or causing others to sin.
I. Immediate implementation of Closed Communion displays a lack of Pastoral
sensitivity that is evidence of his willful negligence and inability.
i. Jesus commands that we cut off our sin immediately lest unrepentance lands
us in hell (Matthew 5:29-30).
ii. Open Communion is a sinful practice.
iii. Therefore, Jesus commands that we cut off open communion immediately lest
unrepentance lands us in hell.
iv. It is absurd to assert that following Jesus command should be considered
Willful neglect and inability to perform the duties of the pastoral office.
J. Pr. Fuehrer refused to work with the Elders and decided to implement Closed
Communion without them, willfully neglecting his obligation to work with them.
i. This is false. Pr. Fuehrer went to the Elders and asked them to work with him
in implementing closed communion and they refused to work with him.
ii. Pastors should not submit to the elders or the congregation when they refuse,
reject or ignore the Word and Command of God. Then the pastor Must obey
God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).
iii. The Elders refused to work with Pr. Fuehrer in immediately cutting off the sin
of open communion, and insodoing, they refused the command of Jesus (5:2930).
iv. It is absurd to suggest that Pr. Fuehrer was willfully negligent of his duties,
when he obeyed Gods word and command rather than submit to the
objections of men.
Irrelevant Testimony pertaining to the expediency of removing Pr. Nathan

A. If Pastor stays, then Im leaving, therefore you should vote to remove him
i. The vote was not to decide whether pastor or member stays, but whether
pastor was guilty of willful neglect.
ii. Seeking to obtain a favorable vote through threats or coercion is extortion.
Voters are not to vote guilty/not guilty based on threats, but on evidence of
wrongdoing.
B. If Pastor leaves, we can stop the bleeding and begin to rebuild our church.
i. The vote was not to have members decide whether the church would do better
without the pastor or how best to save their church, but whether Pr. Fuehrer
was guilty of willful neglect.
ii. Promising a favourable outcome in order to solicit a guilty vote is bribery.
Voters are not to vote guilty/not guilty based on bribes or costs/benefits
analyses, but on evidence of actual wrongdoing.
1. O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent(He) who does not put out
his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent
(Psalm 15: 1, 5a)
C. Dont worry, this vote wont affect Pr. Fuehrers ability to receive another call
i. This is patently false because, he was removed for willful negligence and
inability to perform the duties of the office, which is manifest grounds for
defrocking a pastor (See Grothe Deposal and/or Removal: Principles,
Practices, and Proposals, also LC-C bylaws on restricted status and
suspension). Moreover, in the secular world, dismissal for willful neglect is
misconduct that must be reported in future job applications, and it disqualifies
one from receiving Employment Insurance.
ii. Even so, knowledge of whether Pr. Fuehrer can receive another call or not
should not be a basis on which to vote him guilty or not-guilty of willful
neglect.
iii. Again, promising a favourable outcome in order to solicit a guilty vote is
bribery. Voters are not to vote guilty/not guilty based on bribes or
costs/benefits analyses, but on evidence of actual wrongdoing.
D. Pr. Fuehrer is not a good fit for the congregation
i. The voters were not to decide whether Pr. Fuehrer was a good-fit, but
whether he was guilty of willful neglect of the duties of the pastoral office.
ii. To argue that a Pastor should be removed if hes not a good fit is false
doctrine. God calls and joins pastors to congregations, and what God has
joined, let no man separate (Mark 10:9). Such false doctrine should not be
allowed to be spoken publically in the church, let alone in proceedings against
a pastor.
E. Pr. Fuehrer has lost the trust of a significant portion of the congregation.
i. The voters were not to decide whether Pr. Fuehrer was trusted by the
congregation, but whether he was guilty of willful neglect of the duties of the
pastoral office.
ii. Even if true, the testimony doesnt speak to whether there was any willful
neglect that caused the loss of trust.
1. Slander can cause people to lose trust in the accused, though the
accused did nothing but suffer wrong.

III.

iii. The very admission of such irrelevant, yet suspicion eliciting statements
before the assembly causes the very thing it claims already exists, namely
distrust of Pastor Fuehrer.
Irrelevant Testimony pertaining to Church Doctrine and Practice
A. Pr. Fuehrer wants to implement Closed Communion.
i. This charge is true, but it is evidence of Pr. Fuehrer actually performing the
duties of the office, not neglecting them. God commands closed communion.
(See Guidelines for Congregational and Pastoral Practice, LC-C).
ii. Ironically, Pr. Fuehrer would be guilty of willful neglect if he didnt
implement Closed Communion.
B. Pr. Fuehrer refuses to work with women.
i. This is not true. Pr. Fuehrer has worked with women chairmen, PPC
members, and Sunday School teachers for the entire 6 years of his tenure at
Immanuel. He also invented and promoted the Parish Coordinator position at
Immanuel now held by a woman.
ii. This charge was made because Pr. Fuehrer teaches what the bible teaches that
women are not to exercise spiritual or pastoral oversight, and he told the
female chairman she should not be involved in elders meetings dealing with
such matters. (See LC-C, CTCR Document on Role of Women in the Church,
esp. Thesis 9)
iii. This is actually evidence of Pr. Fuehrer fulfilling the duties of the pastoral
office, not neglecting them. Ironically, Pr. Fuehrer would be guilty of willful
neglect if he did teach and allow women to exercise spiritual authority in the
church.
C. The Ecclesiastical Supervisor (ES) thinks Pr. Fuehrer should go, therefore we should
vote him out.
i. The ESs Oct. 25th letter, after stating that the approach Pastor Nathan has
taken in this issue has reopened and deepened many wounds with the result
that he has lost the confidence of a significant portion of the congregation and
on those grounds I stand by what can only be described as a very painful
recommendation to make However, the letter never mentions whether that
recommendation is for the congregation to vote for Pr. Fuehrers removal, or
whether hes referring to the recommendation he had already made a month
prior, that Pr. Fuehrer resign his call.
ii. The ES has stated he didnt intend to recommend to the voters that they vote
Pr. Fuehrer out. Nevertheless, if the recommendation was only for Pr.
Fuehrer, his letter should have been addressed to Pr. Fuehrer. Reasonable
minds will think that any recommendations being spoken to them are meant
for them.
iii. At least two voters thought that the ES was recommending the voters remove
Pr. Fuehrer, one being the Chairman of the congregation, because both of
them asserted before the assembly that The ES thinks Pr. Fuehrer should go,
therefore we should vote him out.
iv. The only church authority or precedent upon which the ES based his
recommendation for Pr. Fuehrer to resign was a quotation from C.F.W.
Wather, that he has since admitted he misquoted. In context Walther was not

IV.

providing ground for a pastors resignation, but rather grounds for a pastor to
accept another valid Call, when one has come contrary to his expectation
(Grothe p.16). Therefore, the ESs recommendation was unfounded and
should not have been admitted into the trial.
D. The ES said Pr. Fuehrer should resign and Pr. Fuehrer refused, showing willful
neglect of his superior.
i. Recommendations are inherently optional, therefore it is absurd to suggest
that deciding against a recommendation amounts to disobedience or willful
neglect.
ii. The ESs recommendation to resign was not based on Willful Neglect and
Inability to Perform the Duties of the office. If it was, then the proper course
for an ES is to place the Pastor on Restricted Status, thereby giving grounds to
the congregation to remove his call. But the ES did not, militating the
conclusion that he saw no clear and convincing evidence of the charge.
iii. Finally, the ES never said, Pr. Fuehrer has been Willfully Negligent and
unable to perform the duties of the office, therefore, to say he did is false
testimony.
E. The ambassadors of reconciliation said if Pr. Fuehrers reconciliation efforts didnt
work, the relationship may have to come to an end.
i. The Ambassadors of Reconciliation did not say that the congregation would
have to vote to remove Pr. Fuehrer, only that the relationship may have to
come to an end.
ii. The only biblical way to end one Call is for a Pastor to accept another call that
he was issued. There is no grounds for a faithful and capable pastor to resign
his call.
iii. The ES has said, "Pr. Fuehrer is a gifted, intellegent, orthodox pastor, which
corroborates Pr. Fuehrers decision not to resign.
iv. Dislike of the Pastor is not grounds for his resignation.
1. Ministers of God throughout salvation history were disliked by those
whom they preached too, yet God did not authorize them to tender
their resignation. (e.g., Jeremiah)
2. Jonah resigned from his Call to preach to Ninevah and was sinful for
doing so. But God held him to his call anyway.
List of relevant testimony disproving willful neglect
A. When convinced and convicted of his own sinful frustration and zeal, Pr. Fuehrer
willfully sought the forgiveness of the congregation
i. He publically confessed his sinful frustration and zeal and asked
congregational forgiveness at the Spring 2015 Voters Meeting.
ii. June
5
June
24
Pr.
Fuehrer
visited
the
nine upset individuals/couples-identified by the Elders-in an
effort to seek reconciliation and peace with them. Pastor
Fuehrer began each session asking for forgiveness and was
prepped to simply listen to peoples concerns. Pr. Nathan was
accompanied by an Elder who remarked after each meeting
that he thought it went well.

1. To his credit Pastor Nathan worked diligently through the summer

months of this year to visit members and seek their forgiveness for his
words and actions. (ES Letter, Oct. 25, 2015, p.1)
B. Pr. Fuehrer willfully repented and decided to implement closed communion
i. Open Communion is negligent in being a steward of the mysteries of God (1
Cor. 4:1-2)
ii. When Pr. Fuehrer realized this, he repented immediately and resolved to
amend his practice and be a good steward of the mysteries of God.
C. Pr. Fuehrer did not neglect the concerns of the Synod or Congregational Leadership,
but was patient and wanting to work together in implementing Closed Communion.
He submitted the following statement at his trial.
i. [Regarding the Charge] You didnt work with the Elders (people) in
implementation of closed communion.
1. The Elders were the first people I spoke with about this matter. When
they requested the congregational meeting be postponed I agreed.
When they requested communion be postponed I agreed. When they
requested I take a leave of absence I agreed. I have listened to and
worked with the Elders throughout this process.
ii. [Regarding the Charge] You were not patient in implementing Closed
Communion.
1. As I agree completely with the ES that moving towards closed
communion should be done with patience and teaching.
a. I first brought the issue of closed communion to the Elders in
mid-September, and asked if they would support me in
discussing the matter to the people at a congregational
meeting.
b. At that meeting I agreed to postpone the congregational
meeting, and sought the advice of the ES.
c. In late September the ES asked me to reconsider moving
towards closed communion which I did.
d. The ES then asked me to consider resigning, which I did.
e. In early Oct I agreed to take a leave of absence at the request
of P.P.C.
2. I listened to all these voices and agreed to these requests in order to
work with the leadership of Immanuel, and to be patient in moving
towards responsible communion practice, as the ES states should be
done at the top of page 2 of his letter. My desire today remains the
same as it was at the beginning of this processto bring this matter to
the people as the guidelines of the Council of Presidents of Lutheran
Church Canada describe
D. When tempted with resignation, and the possibility of escaping the present conflict in
the church, Pr. Fuehrer did not abandon the flock entrusted to his care, but stayed,
despite the fierce opposition he faced, rather than flee to await an easier Call. Pr.
Fuehrer submitted the following statement at his trial.
i. [Regarding the charge] The ES told you to resign.

1. God has not given me the right to leave the sheep in the midst of
conflict and I must continue working towards reconciliation. That is
why I could not resign. God has given the right to remove a pastor to
the eccleastical [sic] supervisor, and if I was guilty of scandalous
lifestyle, willful neglect, or preaching false doctrine I know he would
have.