On April 11, 2011, the voters of St. Peter congregation met, and voted to terminate my fellowship with St. Peter Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). I was not aware of this meeting, no members of my family were present, and I was not afforded any opportunity to defend myself.
Out of the blue and without any warning right before Holy Week of 2011, I received a certified letter informing me that my membership in St. Peter and the WELS was terminated. (
April 12, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church). That certified letter said:
April 12, 2011
Dear Fredrick (Rick) Techlin Jr.,
In your letter titled “Letter to WELS 2011″ dated January 20, 2011 and published on your blog a few days later, you made the following statements:
“However, during our attempts to resolve the doctrinal differences reiterated by that letter, it became apparent that I disagree doctrinally not only with Pastor Glende and my Church Council, but also District President Engelbrecht, and other leaders in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).” (page 1)
“I do disagree with my pastors and Church Council over doctrine.” (page 11)
“My doctrinal differences with my congregation have been known by me for well over two years.” (page 29)
“Should I continue in fellowship with synod leaders who counsel laymen not to pray with other non-WELS Christians, but then defend WELS pastors who plagiarize the sermons of our theological enemies? The answer is no. I should not continue in fellowship with the theological blackguards of the WELS…’ (page 31)
Rick, by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church and the doctrine of the WELS. On the basis of your published statements, St. Peter’s Board of Elders and Church Council recommended to the Voter’s Assembly that your membership in our congregation be terminated. At the Voter’s Meeting of St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church on April 11th, 2011, this recommendation was acted upon and unanimously approved. In carrying out this action, St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your “Letter to WELS 2011″. This action is in keeping with St. Peter’s Constitution, Article V, Section 5 – Termination of Fellowship.
We commend you to your own spiritual care and will continue to keep you in our prayers.
Sincerely,
St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church Voters, Board of Elders, & Church Council
According to St. Peter Church’s certified letter, “by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with … the doctrine of the WELS” and that “St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your ‘Letter to WELS 2011′.” However, my 2011 letter to the WELS also said:
… if I am wrong about the doctrine, then how am I supposed to be corrected if I cannot attend any meetings where these issues are being discussed? …
Therefore, I am sending this letter to the WELS Conference of Presidents (COP) in the hope that maybe I do not have to leave the WELS over doctrine. These are important issues, and if I am wrong, then I should be properly instructed so that I can be convinced by God’s Word… My strongest desire is not to leave the WELS, rather I more strongly desire that these doctrinal conflicts would be resolved with unanimous agreement. To that end, there needs to be discussion, and that is one of the primary purposes of these letters…
1. Is it the WELS doctrine that Christians can choose to believe God’s Word?
2. Is it the WELS doctrine that from our perspective God needs our service?
3. Is it the WELS doctrine that the sin of plagiarism is not a sin? …
If the WELS Conference of Presidents answers ‘yes’ to any of these questions, please have some kind person explain the doctrine to me in a way that I can understand. If I am wrong, then I will be wrong. I have no personal stake in being infallible, and neither should any other Christian. Further it is not my desire to leave the WELS without serious effort to at least understand these positions, even if I am unable to agree.
I cannot simply choose to believe that which I actually believe is false. I must be shown the truth in the light of plain reason or the Scriptures. This points to the fifth consequence of post conversion Decision Theology: There has been very little (virtually no) effort put into showing me the ‘light.’ I have been simply expected to choose to believe the St. Peter & The CORE doctrine. And if praise songs, popcorn, and big screen TVs are not enough positive motivation, then other negative motivators are applied. The goal is not to reveal the light of truth, but to motivate a choice…
(See also “
WELS Northern Wisconsin District Doctrinal Issues“). The entire letter dated January 20, 2011 is basically a description of my efforts to discuss doctrine, and the total rebuffing of those efforts. This final act of terminating fellowship means that I am no longer a member of the WELS or of any visible Christian church.
St. Peter Church terminated my fellowship with the WELS under Article V, Section 5 of St. Peter Church’s Constitution. That section deals with Christians who are not accused of any willful sin (and thus can still go to heaven), but are still nonetheless guilty of false doctrine, and therefore must be excluded from the fellowship of the orthodox. It states:
Termination of Fellowship
A. Members who persist in an error that in itself does not make the presence of saving faith impossible and who otherwise are not under church discipline (cf Article V Section 2D and Section 3) may be excluded from the fellowship of the congregation
1. after they have been evangelically admonished by their fellow Christians in the spirit of Matthew 18:15-16; and
2. when their adherence to error becomes public and a matter of divisiveness (Titus 3:10) and thus an offense and obstacle to the truth of God’s Word (Romans 16:17-18).
B. This action shall not be used for removing inactive members as a substitute for the loving act of excommunication when impenitence is clearly evident.
C. Members thus excluded from fellowship shall lose all rights in the congregation and in its property.
That section of the Constitution cites Titus 3:10 and Romans 16:17-18. There Paul says: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (KJV). Also:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. [KJV. Emphasis added].
The Scriptures cited by the St. Peter Church constitution contain the phrase: “mark … and avoid.” This means that St. Peter Church has marked me as a persistent errorist and a teacher of false doctrine that all WELS congregations and members should avoid.
St. Peter Church says I declared myself out of WELS fellowship. That is false. If I thought the WELS doctrine was wrong, and I believed that I could not be convinced of that doctrine, then I would gladly leave. I would not need to be without warning kicked out right before Easter.
In terminating my fellowship, St. Peter Church cited only my letter to the WELS dated January 20, 2011. That letter also references another letter dated November 1, 2009. Here are links to both letters:
People can judge for themselves whether there is false doctrine in those letters. I believe those letters accurately represent the doctrine of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions and as subscribed to by the WELS.
*
After the January 20, 2011 letter, the only meeting I had with the pastors of St. Peter Congregation was on March 25, 2011. The five concerned area WELS pastors had been trying to meet with the pastors of St. Peter & The CORE for over a year. However, the pastors of St. Peter refused to meet without the District Presidium, and the District Presidium refused to meet together with all the pastors. Finally, as a courtesy to the Synod President, the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium scheduled a meeting for March 25, 2011. The five concerned pastors were also able to secure an invitation for Tony Kubek Jr. and me. (See the post: “
An Update“).
The Northern Wisconsin District Presidium continues to maintain that these public matters cannot be handled in a brotherly way if we publicly discuss them. However, St. Peter Church has publicly terminated my fellowship with the WELS, therefore, I should be able to at least say that the conclusion of this meeting was not: that I should leave the WELS.
No agreement was reached on any issue, nonetheless, I did not leave this meeting thinking that my fellowship with the WELS was about to be terminated. District President Engelbrecht encouraged everyone to keep our discussions private and to be willing to engage in further meetings. Nonetheless, two weeks later, St. Peter Church publicly terminated my fellowship in the WELS as a persistent errorist.
*
In their certified letter, St. Peter Church concluded: “We commend you to your own spiritual care …” I have done my best to resolve these matters Scripturally by attempting to discuss them. However, the leadership of St. Peter Church has been steadfastly adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong at St. Peter Church, and therefore these matters will not be discussed in any way in which my concerns would be given any legitimate consideration. By their words and deeds the leadership of St. Peter Church has officially declared that we are not walking together, we do not have the same doctrine, and we do not belong in the same synod. Their persistence has forced me to agree, that we do not belong in the same synod.
I have appealed this wrongful termination of my WELS fellowship to the Appeals Board of the Northern Wisconsin District. That is as high as a layman can appeal. (WELS Constitution § 8.50(e)). If I lose this appeal and no other WELS congregation steps in to intervene, then my days in the WELS will be over. But at least I would know where the Northern Wisconsin District officially stands on doctrine.
Win or lose, the spiritual battle belongs to the Lord. (Ephesians 6:12).
Kyrie eleison.
22 COMMENTS:
We urge our readers to pray for Mr. Techlin, his congregation and its leaders, and the Northern Wisconsin District and its leaders, so that error might be addressed and rooted out in a God-pleasing manner. We fully support Mr. Techlin in his resolve to restore confessional Lutheran doctrine and practice in his congregation, and we hope that all WELS pastors and laymen in that district will recognize the need to stand behind Mr. Techlin for the preservation of the Gospel.
It's a very frustrating situation, all the more so because it doesn't seem like there's anything that the average WELS layperson (or pastor) can do about it.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Yes, there is something laypeople can do. They can call, write, email, their own Pastors, CPs, DPs, and the synod President, and express their frustration with leaders like the NWD DP, and support for men like Mr. Techlin, and the Intrepid Lutherans. And they can do so over and over and over and over again. And they can encourage others to do the same. What we need are thousands of calls, letters, and emails, all saying the same thing; demanding that the false teachers be dealt with - NOW! Believe me, that will make a difference, one way or another. Do it today - and pass the word! Don't hesitate. Don't wait. Don't bide your time. NOW is the time to act. Do not let this opportunity pass. Strike! Defend confessional Lutheranism! Attack the sectarian forces that are threatening to destroy the WELS as an orthodox Lutheran church body! You can do it!
Pastor Spencer
As one of the five pastors who've engaged the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium in discussions concerning the doctrine and practice of St. Peter, Freedom and the CORE, Appleton, I can say that your frustration is shared by us and the two laymen who join us. (One of those laymen is Rick Techlin, the author of the two letters.)
WELS President Schroeder is aware of our concerns. He has recently met with President Engelbrecht of the Northern Wisconsin District. Finally, after months of asking that President Engelbrecht set up a meeting between our group and the pastors of St. Peter and the CORE, it looks as though a meeting might finally happen in the next week.
During the past year we have had a couple of face-to-face meetings with the NW District Presidium, and shared thesis papers on the areas of doctrine that concern us. In early December they did agree in principle with each of those areas of doctrine. However, they were not going to request a meeting with the pastors of St. Peter and the CORE. Now we'd like to see them take the next step, insisting that continued practice that is opposed to Scriptural doctrine be halted.
Please understand that it is not up to the WELS President to unilaterally remove leaders from their positions of leadership. The WELS Constitution (section 8.20) says, "The two district vice presidents with the concurrence of the district circuit pastors may suspend the district president from his office. The president shall have 60 days thereafter to appeal this suspension. If there is no appeal within 60 days, the action shall be final and the officer is removed from office. If he appeals, the appeal will be heard by the District Board of Appeals."
Furthermore, "In the case of district vice presidents and secretary, the president with the concurrence of the circuit pastors may suspend another officer. The district officer shall have 60 days thereafter to appeal this suspension. If there is no appeal within 60 days, the action shall be final and the officer if removed from office. If he appeals, the appeal will be heard by the District Board of Appeals."
Also, "The conduct of review shall rest with the District Board of Appeals. The board shall have the right and power to examine all documentary evidence and correspondence and to require such testimony
that in its judgment is relevant. The decision of the District Board of Appeals may be appealed to
the Synod Board of Appeals. Upon the appeal, the Synod Board of Appeals may review the action
of the District Board of Appeals."
I'm normally not one who quotes the synod Constitution. Yet, it is how we've agreed to do things in a proper and fitting way.
Continued ...
Pastor Spencer is correct. Pastors, teachers, laypeople must make it clear to their leaders that they cannot condone the doctrine and practice that is taking place at St. Peter, Freedom or the CORE. The more we do so, the more our leaders will know that Confessional Lutheranism is something we do want to defend.
Though I'd love to say that you're wrong, I can't disagree with your assessment that "the people of the Northern Wisconsin District keep electing leaders who refuse to stand for Confessional Lutheranism, and, in fact, seem to protect false teachers."
Elections in the NW District are never discussed publicly. We simply race through the election process, usually with the same results. At one of the face-to-face meetings with the NW District Presidium, our small group of pastors was asked, "What would you do if you were us?" There is little disagreement that we would stand for being intentionally Lutheran--confessionally Lutheran. I'm not sure why our leaders are timid in doing so, except that those who aren't intentionally Lutheran will declare them to be legalistic.
To end on a positive note, I am very encouraged when I see laypeople like Rick Techlin stand for the truth of Scripture. Rick is not grandstanding. He is a very humble, thoughtful person who refuses to allow God's Word to be compromised in any way. For the NW District Presidium to ignore him in the way they are, is hard to accept.
Thanks, Mr. Peeler, for your continued concern for this situation and your continued contributions to Intrepid Lutherans.
Pastor Paul Lidtke
Please keep us informed as to the outcome of these meetings. Please resist all efforts to keep this public doctrinal matters "confidential". As you well know, the WELS likes to "sweep it under the carpet". God bless Rick Techlin, may we be blessed with more wonderful laymen like him!
Scott E. Jungen
Thanks also for the quotes from the WELS Constitution. It seems to me that that particular section of the Constitution is ill-conceived. It's reasonable to expect that if a majority of voters elect a district president who is minded to tolerate false doctrine, they will also elect vice-presidents who share the same mindset, making the removal of the president virtually impossible. It would be like making the vice-president of our country the one with sole authority to impeach the president--"not gonna happen". There needs to be a separate, separately-elected authority in charge of such issues, whether it's the synod praesidium or the other district presidents or something.
I suppose the age-old question applies: "Who watches the watchmen?" The answer, in this case, seems to be "no one".
If the WELS continues to demonstrate that it is willing to tolerate false doctrine and practice, and that it is willing to tolerate leaders who tolerate false doctrine and practice, and there is no recourse for discipline and correction, at what point must Confessional Lutherans leave the WELS?
Mr. Adam Peeler
"CONFIDENTIAL." I will let most of this letter remain confidential, but not the aspects that touch doctrine. This is because the doctrine of a district president is not confidential. A district president's doctrine is not confidential when he communicates it to others. A district president's doctrine is not confidential when he doctrinally instructs laymen and other pastors. A district
I disagree with you.
As Mr. Techlin rightly points out, the doctrinal teaching of a pastor (and district president) is a public matter. Christ himself made the point that he taught openly and publicly, he didn't hide any of his teachings. Pastors should not be writing or teaching things privately that they aren't willing to teach or write publicly. In other words, pastors can't teach false doctrine, stamp "confidential" on it, and then rest secure because that false doctrine will never be exposed.
Now, if, for example, a pastor privately loses his temper and calls someone a dirty name, that would be a private sin which should remain private. But the teaching of doctrine does not fit into that category.
Furthermore, you cite "due process", but one of the most disturbing facets of this situation is that there seems to be no due process available to Mr. Techlin. How can you "tell it to the church" when the church refuses to listen to you?
Mr. Adam Peeler
Please note that the comments I offer below are not just pertaining to WELS, or to any other specific church body, but address general principles of admotion, church fellowship, and related matters, which can and should be applied whenever and wherever the situation may call for it.
I would say that when all procedural avenues for correction of error in a church body have been exhausted, and those who are erring still do not receive the correction, the next step would not necessarily be to leave the church body in question, but to enter into a public state of confession. This would be a declaration that an impasse has been reached, and that altar and pulpit fellowship will now not be practiced with the offending parties or with those who support them, but will continue to be practiced with those who join in the state of confession against the error. A public declaration of this nature would serve as a rallying point, requiring everyone else in the church body then to decide which side in the dispute they are going to take. At the end of that process, if repentance on the part of the false teachers is still not forthcoming, this "division of the house" would likely then result in a split - either through the expulsion of the false teachers, which would keep the church body orthodox; or through the expulsion of the confessors, which would mark the church body as recalcitrant in its heterodoxy.
But of course, such a step should not be taken until there is no other God-pleasing recourse left, and only when the confessors are indeed ready to be expelled, if that is what it comes to.
Moreover, the problems in that district are not limited to St. Peter or the Core. There are several other congregations in the Green Bay and Appleton areas that have gone down the same path (though perhaps not as blatantly) as St. Peter.
I'm just left amazed by reading Mr. Techlin's account. Honestly, how bad do things have to get before someone with power in this synod publicly says enough is enough?
Dr. Aaron Palmer
If pastors do not repent, their "confidential" false teaching will be exposed under Matt. 18.
Mr. Adam Peeler: "Now, if, for example, a pastor privately loses his temper and calls someone a dirty name, that would be a private sin which should remain private. But the teaching of doctrine does not fit into that category."
The 8th Commandment recognizes only two categories of sin: private sin and public sin. If a pastor has only taught his false doctrine privately, he must be given an opportunity to privately recant before his false teaching is publicly exposed via Matt. 18.
Mr. Adam Peeler: "Furthermore, you cite "due process", but one of the most disturbing facets of this situation is that there seems to be no due process available to Mr. Techlin. How can you "tell it to the church" when the church refuses to listen to you?"
Yes, that is a problem. Bureaucratic obstructions and a veil of secrecy imposed by the DP have made it virtually impossible for Mr. Techlin to obtain due process.
The DP should never have stamped his teaching of public doctrine "confidential" (John 18:20). But two wrongs do not make a right. The 8th commandment makes no exception for privately taught false doctrine. Instead of improperly disclosing a confidential letter, Mr. Techlin should have rejected the letter and insisted that all discussions of public doctrine be made a matter of public record.
Isn't that exactly what's going on here though? Mr. Techlin has made every effort to follow the steps of Matthew 18, going through the proper channels, with the result that he was ignored and dismissed. As I asked before, how can you tell it to the church when the church won't listen?
Mr. Techlin is simply using the last recourse available to him by publishing these matters and making them available to the church at large. In my opinion, by refusing to meet with Mr. Techlin and to hear his admonition, President Englebrecht has abdicated his right to keep this matter private. It is now a public matter to be heard and judged by the church at large.
In any case, questionable interpretations of Matthew 18 have been used far too often to silence dissenters in the WELS, almost like lawyers who try to get a valid case thrown out of court on a technicality. I don't want our side discussion on the interpretation of Matthew 18, Mr. Gorman, to distract the discussion of this very serious issue. If you want to argue that Mr. Techlin didn't follow the letter of the law, fine (though I'm convinced he did). He certainly followed the spirit of the law and certainly has been wronged and betrayed by his pastors and his church leaders. That's the real issue here.
Mr. Adam Peeler
The assertion that Mr. Techlin failed to follow Matthew 18 is absurd. His private meetings with his pastor, church leaders, circuit pastor, and district president were all steps along the Matthew 18 lines. He followed all of their prescribed measures, including his restriction from secret "pastor only" meetings and forced attendance at interrogation sessions - he even endured the censoring of his blog!
The letter he initially sent abided by this narrow view of Matthew 18. That was more than a year ago. How long should Mr. Techlin endure the perpetual false doctrine of his so-called shepherds until he makes the matter public?
God bless you, Rick!
Pastor Luke Boehringer
Rhonda Martinez
Perry Lund
Grace Evangelical Lutheran
Oskaloosa, Iowa
Who is in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
And the pace is hot, and the points are near,
And Sleep has deadened the driver’s ear;
And the signals flash through the night in vain,
For Death is in charge of the clattering train.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Yes, things are quiet on the outside, but I can assure you there is activity on the inside.
At this point in time, however, we are not able to share all of what is taking place behind the scenes.
Still, I believe it would not be out of line to say that the concerns, not only of the Intrepid Lutherans, but of a number of Pastors and laypeople in WELS are being heard and acted upon by the synod's leaders.
We hope to be able to share some of the results next week.
Please continue to pray for the WELS and her leaders, that all of God's truth will be upheld and proclaimed as it deserves to be.
Pastor Spencer