LCMS controls and divides “self-governing partner” in Sri Lanka

LCMS controls and divides “self-governing partner” in Sri Lanka

• The LCMS recently caused a major division within a partner church in Sri Lanka, the Ceylon Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the following is a summary of how it happened.

• In 2017 the Ceylon Evangelical Lutheran Church had its first convocation in Sri Lanka. A new registered church body in Sri Lanka was needed, because the former “Lanka Lutheran Church” lacked an official registration with the government of Sri Lanka. LCMS missionaries made up the board of the legal entity of the Ceylon Evangelical Lutheran Church, opened a bank account, and LCMS donations funded the pastors’ salaries and other activities. The first CELC convocation in 2017 was marked by the ordination of Pastor Gnanakumar, bringing the total number of Sri Lankan pastors to four. Pastor Gnanakumar’s face has regularly appeared in Lutherans Engage the World Magazine, and other synodical publications. (See article below.)

• At the same time, however, the congregation of Faith Lutheran Church in Labookellie, the tea plantation where Pastor Gnanakumar grew up, separated itself from the emerging church body, and a non-Lutheran pastor began serving them, as it is to this day.

• In 2023 Pastor Arulchelvan was consecrated as bishop, and the LCMS in Convention declared altar and pulpit fellowship with the CELC, recognizing them as a self-governing partner church, upon recommendation from the Office of International Mission and with ratification from the CTCR.

• In reality, however, LCMS missionaries maintain control of the partner church body. Documents from Sri Lanka over the last few months show irrefutable evidence that the LCMS missionary in Sri Lanka, Rev. Steven Mahlburg, is the Chairman of the CELC board of directors. The LCMS Regional Director for Asia, Rev. Charles Ferry, who lives in Taiwan, is the Secretary of the CELC board of directors. The LCMS business manager for Asia, Mr. Sam Borgwardt, who also lives in Taiwan, is the treasurer. The partner church itself is considered a ‘project’ of the legal entity, which the LCMS controls.

• The pastors of the CELC have wanted to be truly self-governing for many years, but out of necessity, due to LCMS control of funds, have allowed the LCMS to make decisions for them.

• Conflict came to a head in 2024, when the LCMS Regional Director Charles Ferry exercised church discipline on the CELC Bishop and other pastors, in part because they attempted to negotiate with the leadership of Faith Lutheran Church in Labookellie, to be reconciled and join the CELC, without authorization from the LCMS. In Ferry’s own words, in a letter printed on CELC letterhead and sealed with the CELC stamp, dated 26 August 2024: “The Board of Directors is gravely concerned about recent legal conflicts which have been instigated by pastors of the CELC without authorization. We are also gravely concerned that the Bishop and the rest of the Council have reportedly failed to fulfill responsibilities to prepare for the upcoming Assembly. Despite clear guidance from the board in written format, the Council has apparently not been accomplishing its proper and assigned work    to provide for the CELC. Due to the ongoing legal questions and the lack of Assembly preparations, the CELC Board of Directors is withdrawing its support for the CELC pastors to attend the Pastor’s Refresher Course and Centennial Celebration for Concordia Theological Seminary Nagercoil. All CELC pastors are required to cancel their plans and refrain from attending that event.”

• In response to this disciplinary action, the Sri Lankan Bishop and diocesan council, which includes the other Sri Lankan pastors and elected laymen, met and approved a detailed eight-page letter in Tamil. Their letter expressed their own concerns, and reprimanded Charles Ferry and Steven Mahlburg on a number of points, most especially for conducting business without their knowledge and approval. They also stated their intention not to take responsibility any more for Steven Mahlburg’s visa, which allows him to remain in the country. While expressing their thanks to the LCMS “for feeding us and our congregation people with spiritual and physical benefits for many ages and we pray that this relationship will continue to be protected and cooperated”, they conclude: “we humbly ask you to hold detailed discussions on this matter with the Chief Executives including representatives of the LCMS and the Executive Board and Council Leaders of Sri Lanka Evangelical Lutheran Church to help take the church on the path of development.”

• Without responding to any of the points made in the letter from the Sri Lankan council, Steven Mahlburg replied with two letters — again on CELC letterhead, using the CELC seal, indicating that the LCMS is in charge, not the Bishop, and threatening further disciplinary action if the LCMS is not obeyed. First he wrote to the CELC bishop Arulchelvan on a letter dated Sept. 29, 2024, demanding renewal of his visa: “Please note that the signature requirement is urgent and we cannot wait for the next council meeting. lf this signature is delayed, it can have a lot of negative consequences for everyone, including disruption of the operations of CELC. Your letter amounts to a refusal to comply with directions from our leadership — you have also stated that you will comply with our instructions only if your demands are met. We trust that you are not trying to threaten or blackmail me into complying with your demands. Please be assured that the leadership of the LCMS is keenly observing this situation and there will be consequences for any disruption of the organisation.”

• Second Mahlburg wrote to the CELC council, in a letter dated Sept. 30th, 2024, dismissing the concerns that they expressed in their letter, rejecting their request to discuss matters as a group, and requiring the Sri Lankan pastors and evangelists to meet him one by one, in a clear effort to divide the Sri Lankans. In his own words, Mahlburg Stated: “I categorically deny the various allegations and accusations made against me in your said letter.” Then, asserting the authority of the LCMS to exercise discipline over the partner church, including the bishop, he wrote: “The leadership of LCMS does not wish to take any strict measures to maintain order and discipline without affording all parties involved an opportunity to discuss and resolve differences amicably. It is for this purpose that we have scheduled meetings individually … Each of you will be free to express your views without fear or any negative consequences at the meetings. We emphasize that these meetings will be with each of you separately — it is important that we understand your viewpoints and also that we are sure that no one is acting under coercion or duress from any others.” Finishing the letter on an authoritarian tone, he wrote: “Kindly note that the leadership wishes to resolve outstanding issues in the spirit of Christian brotherhood and humility. However, we hope that these efforts to peacefully resolve ongoing disputes will not be misunderstood to be weakness on our part. You may have your grievances — we too have very serious concerns. Therefore, please be assured that the leadership” (that is LCMS leaders) “will refrain from taking any action before the scheduled meetings are held.”

• After some delay, the meetings took place. The Sri Lankan pastors who complied with the LCMS in ‘retracting’ the council letter were rewarded, and pastors Devanesan and Gnanakumar, who refused, were invited to resign.

• Subsequently, pastors Devanesan and Gnanakumar did resign, and took with them, out of the partner church, the congregations that were under their care. The LCMS board members wrote letters (again on CELC letterhead) accepting the resignation of pastor Devanesan, whose last day as a CELC pastor was January 20, and accepting the resignation of pastor Gnanakumar, effective January, 2025.

• This sequence of events should be a cause of grave concern to everyone in the LCMS, about how our Synod is being represented internationally, how the Office of International Mission is executing strategies abroad. —ed.