A battle over the leadership at Resurrection Lutheran Church is escalating to the next step after a bishop’s declaration that Pastor Karen Perkins was legally ousted by a congregation council headed by a newly elected president. Perkins and other leaders targeted by that president say the matter should be resolved in court because the bishop’s findings are illegitimate.
A “proposed resolution of disputed issues” issued Thursday by Tim Oslovich, bishop of the Alaska Synod for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, sides with congregation council members who assert Perkins’ tenure as pastor ended June 30. The resolution also states Karen Lawfer was replaced as congregation president by Lisa Brendle, who has filed a lawsuit listing the church as the plaintiff against Lawfer, Perkins and her husband Bradley Perkins.
The lawsuit and involvement by the bishop are part of a lengthy battle within the church that includes a contentious debate last year about continuing to host a winter warming shelter for people experiencing homelessness, as well as other outreach efforts. The church also hosts one of Juneau’s largest food pantries, typically providing groceries and other staples to hundreds of people weekly.
[Lawsuit: Resurrection Lutheran Church leaders have been ousted, clarity in ‘ministerial work’ needed]
Oslovich, after presenting a summary of the leadership situation that essentially matches Brendle’s version of events, offers two proposed resolutions to the dispute that confirm a new slate of church council officers with Brendle as president and that Karen Perkins was legally removed as pastor.
”I recognize that some members of Resurrection will not be happy with this resolution,” Oslovich wrote. “However, I am simply following our governing documents after listening carefully to people from Resurrection and consulting with the Secretary of the ELCA, a certified parliamentarian, and experts in ELCA Constitutions. I ask all of you who are council members, and I ask Pastor Karen Perkins: Are you willing to accept these proposed resolutions to the issues at Resurrection Lutheran Church?”
Brendle, on Sunday, said she accepts the bishop’s proposed resolution. But Lawfer, in a letter to Oslovich dated Saturday that refers to herself as the congregation president, states the council she recognizes as legitimate “will take all legal actions necessary to stop any attempt to enforce such a purported resolution.”
Karen Perkins, in an interview Sunday, said “I will continue to be pastor of the congregation” as long as the church council she considers legitimate — rather than the one affirmed by the bishop — recognizes her as such.
Potential next steps in the dispute are the lawsuit filed by Brendle, and referring the matter to a consultation committee and then the governing council the Alaska Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Lawfer stated in her letter she will not participate in ELCA intervention based on the bishop’s findings since since she considers them invalid.
Both Lawfer and Karen Perkins were absent from Sunday’s service at the church, which they said was due to traveling outside the state for previously scheduled purposes not related to the dispute. Bradley Perkins was at the service, continuing one of his usual roles by overseeing the livestream of the service, as was Brendle.
There was no mention of the church’s disputes during the service. The guest sermon by Laura Rorem — whose husband Larry was pastor of Shepherd Of The Valley Lutheran Church for 17 years until they joined Resurrection Lutheran after his retirement in 2007 — revisited a past sermon of his from 20 years ago about acceptance of others and their differences.
A dispute about “C15.11 of the Constitution of Resurrection Lutheran Church”
While the underlying dispute is about the church’s ministerial role in the community, such as the type of food pantry and other services offered to disadvantaged people, the official arguments involve phrases such as “C15.11” — as in Chapter 15, Section 11 of Resurrection Lutheran Church’s Constitution. The church’s code of conduct and other legalese are also part of the disagreements.
“New” leaders (as recognized by the bishop) say the church’s financial and ministerial health have been significantly harmed in recent years, while the “former” leaders say it’s about trying to scale back programs assisting the homeless and other disadvantaged people. Both sides dispute the characterizations made about them.
Documents by Oslovich and the two leadership groups present a generally consistent overall narrative with sharp disputes at key points.
“I think it is important to note that Resurrection Lutheran Church has been experiencing conflict for quite some time,” Oslovich wrote in his findings before presenting his proposed resolutions.
The disagreements were detailed in a March 2023 report by a listening team from the Alaska Synod, according to Oslovich. That resulted in a recommendation by former Bishop Shelley Wickstrom for a congregation vote on whether to reduce the pastor’s hours to half-time and if Karen Perkins should continue in that role, but such a vote was delayed due to ongoing efforts to resolve the conflicts.
A congregation council election on March 7, 2024, resulted in the election of Brendle as president as well as other new officers, and all 13 members of the council approved the minutes of that election at an April meeting, Oslovich wrote.
However, that is where significant differences in versions of events emerge from the parties involved.
A May 17 notice sent to the congregation by Lawfer and other aligned church officials declared there were irregularities in the March 7 election, and as such an amended tabulation of the vote meant she and others had retained their positions. Brendle, in her lawsuit, alleges the change occurred due to a May 16 meeting by “a disaffected group of the RLC Council” that was illegitimate.
A subsequent meeting in June by council members led by Brendle resulted in the vote to remove Karen Perkins as pastor as of July 1. Oslovich, in his findings, declared the meeting and its outcome were valid under the church’s constitution.
“Notice of the meeting went out to members of the congregation, and the meeting was announced at worship services at least two weeks before the date of the meeting,” he wrote. “I realize that some people decided not to participate in the meeting on June 9. That was their choice.”
Oslovich said he presented his recommendations under “C15.11” of the church’s constitution, which pertains to “disagreements between or among factions within this congregation.” However, Lawfer in her written response states the bishop’s invocation of that clause is “incorrect and not suitable” for the current dispute.
“These issues are ones of fact and law, more appropriately decided by the Alaska legal system,” she wrote.
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at mark.sabbatini@juneauempire.com or (907) 957-2306.
