California wrote:
Recent posts and comments re: a termination of a member of a WELS congregation sending a general letter to all members of the congregation telling the "who, what, when, where, and why" of the situation were posted. Commending the terminated for doing that, one responder suggested that such a letter would prick the consciences of lay recipients.
Perhaps.
But I suspect the terminated letter sender, may have similar experience of
this writer who was terminated along with a few others from a WELS congregation in 1977, for objecting and resisting the beginnings of what has come to fruition since. I too, sent such a letter to all members of the small congregation, so that at least each would know what the issues were, and where we stood re: them, and so no one could say they didn't know or didn't know issues existed. Exactly one responding phone call was received from someone who expressed regret that she wouldn't be seeing us in church any more.
An elder who told me the night before the matter of our termination was to be addressed at a voters' meeting, "You are right, but I have to have a church". His signature was among the unanimous decision to terminate our membership. Perhaps the recently terminated's letter will generate more response from congregation members who may be awakened by it, but no one should be surprised or discouraged if it doesn't. That has been the problem for at least nearly half a century.
I think some to whom the disillusionment with WELS may be fairly recent, should know that they are not the first, and the pattern seems not to have changed since the first laymen of whom I am aware were terminated. i.e. the "Milwaukee Nine", laypeople who publicly objected to the Wisconsin Lutheran High School's taking government grants. That was also in the 70;s. Even with headlines in the Milwaukee newspapers about the matter, there was no general rush to support the terminated laypeople, and certainly minuscule or no discernible exiting from WELS about it then or since.
Perhaps.
But I suspect the terminated letter sender, may have similar experience of
this writer who was terminated along with a few others from a WELS congregation in 1977, for objecting and resisting the beginnings of what has come to fruition since. I too, sent such a letter to all members of the small congregation, so that at least each would know what the issues were, and where we stood re: them, and so no one could say they didn't know or didn't know issues existed. Exactly one responding phone call was received from someone who expressed regret that she wouldn't be seeing us in church any more.
An elder who told me the night before the matter of our termination was to be addressed at a voters' meeting, "You are right, but I have to have a church". His signature was among the unanimous decision to terminate our membership. Perhaps the recently terminated's letter will generate more response from congregation members who may be awakened by it, but no one should be surprised or discouraged if it doesn't. That has been the problem for at least nearly half a century.
I think some to whom the disillusionment with WELS may be fairly recent, should know that they are not the first, and the pattern seems not to have changed since the first laymen of whom I am aware were terminated. i.e. the "Milwaukee Nine", laypeople who publicly objected to the Wisconsin Lutheran High School's taking government grants. That was also in the 70;s. Even with headlines in the Milwaukee newspapers about the matter, there was no general rush to support the terminated laypeople, and certainly minuscule or no discernible exiting from WELS about it then or since.
