DP Engelbrecht Suffers Heart Attack - Undergoes Open Heart Surgery

At 2:00 a.m. this morning, District President Engelbrecht suffered a major heart attack. Surgeons were able to open blockages to his heart and he is resting comfortably in the ICU at Theda Clark in Neenah. 

Friday, August 23, 2013

District President Doug Engelbrecht's Email Supporting James Skorzewski's (Ski's) Return to the Ministry

Brothers,

The perpetual adolescence of WELS pastors is
captured well by the Facebook photos
of Glende and Ski with a scantily dressed Katy Perry.

          A number of weeks ago you received a set of documents from two laypeople in the district who were involved in a situation that ultimately led to the resignation of one of our pastors.   This situation was handled by the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium and the congregation(s) involved according to synod protocols, and reasonable and appropriate action was taken.  A number of you have expressed deep concerns about the content and purpose of the mailing that you received, including the fact that it came out under the aegis of two pastors in the district from whom the couple was receiving counsel.  Your Presidium decided that, since the information the pastors in the district received raised a number of questions, and since it obviously presented only the viewpoint of the couple that sent the information out, it would be good to call a meeting of our circuit pastors to give them a report of the situation from the viewpoint of the Presidium, to answer any questions they might have,  and to help them answer any questions the men in their circuit might bring to them.  That meeting was held on June 18^th at Maribel.  A good share of our circuit pastors were able to be in attendance.  Others, who were not there, already had some involvement in the situation and previously had the information that was shared at that meeting.  President Engelbrecht presented a fairly detailed account of the events that led to the eventual resignation of the pastor involved and of the protocols that were followed.   He explained the plan of discipline and restoration that was developed, which included a suspension of ministry and periodic reviews to determine whether or not a return to the public ministry would be possible at some time in the future.

 It became clear that the use of the term “suspension” in connection with that plan of discipline/restoration was a poor choice of words on the Presidium’s part, since the action that was taken was not consistent with the use of that term in our circles and may have given some the impression that what had taken place was not serious or that the action taken by the Presidium amounted to merely a slap on the wrist.  The circuit pastors came to the understanding that such was not the case, but that the Presidium considered what had taken place to be serious and something that needed serious action.  While the suspension of ministry that was called for did remove the pastor from all ministry, not only in his congregation, but throughout the WELS as well “until further notice”, (as is basically  the case with any resignation) it was misunderstood by those who did not have all the information relative to the case.   As a result, and after consultation with WELS President Mark Schroeder and President Engelbrecht, the pastor made his suspension from ministry more clear by tending a letter of resignation.  That was then reported via the weekly call report.  Although President Schroeder expressed his approval of the plan that was developed for the pastor by the District Presidium that could lead to possible return to pastoral ministry, he felt that the term “suspension” caused both confusion and questions that could be avoided by a standard “resignation”.    The pastor, who thereupon  willfully submitted his resignation, has continued to follow the original plan of discipline/restoration developed for him by the Presidium, recognizing it as a beneficial program for his physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being.   Since all too often when a called worker in our synod resigns there is no program put in place that helps him or her to be restored spiritually, emotionally, and physically, it is hoped that the program developed by the Presidium in this case might serve as a model for dealing with such situations that arise in our synod in the future.

 

The circuit pastors expressed their appreciation for the more detailed explanation of the situation and asked if, in the future, there might be better communication with them in such situations to avoid any misunderstandings or misinformation.

The circuit pastors in attendance at the meeting in Maribel then expressed their concern over the documents that were sent out to all of the pastors in district by the couple, as well as the involvement of the two pastors mentioned in those documents.  The consensus was that the sending out of those documents was inappropriate, since it served only to do further damage to the reputation of the pastor involved, following his resignation.   It was also the consensus of the circuit pastors present that, apart from the initial involvement of the one pastor in bringing the allegations to the attention of the proper individuals, the two pastors had overstepped their bounds in continuing to be involved, since neither of them at the time served as the pastor of the couple nor as a circuit pastor, and neither of them served in any official capacity in the district that would justify their further involvement.    The circuit pastors asked that the Presidium meet with the two pastors mentioned in the mailing to convey that message to them and to ask to what extent they knew about the mailing that was sent out.    Such a meeting was held the following day on June 19^th and the concern of the circuit pastors about their involvement was conveyed to them.   The two pastors did state that, as far as the mailing was concerned, they were not aware of it being sent out and did not encourage or OK it.   The Presidium thanked them for their willingness to meet with us and to listen to our concerns, and also thanked them for their obvious concern for the spiritual and emotional well-being of the couple who were involved.   We encouraged further meetings of the couple and the Presidium to help them in their healing process. 

          It needs to be stated at this point that at no time did the leadership and pastoral staff of St. Peter/The CORE take lightly the incidents and events that took place which led to the resignation of their pastor or try to cover them up in any way.   They stated that sin is sin and it was acknowledged as such by those involved where sin occurred, and where poor decisions and lapses in judgment occurred they were also acknowledged and addressed.    The moment these incidents were brought to the attention of the responsible officials, the proper procedures, as laid out by our synod policies for situations like this, were followed both by the District Presidium and by the leadership of St. Peter/The CORE.     While the general nature of the incidents that led to the resignation of their pastor were shared with the members of St. Peter/the CORE, specific details of the incidents (including names) were not shared in order to protect primarily the couple involved and also the pastor, as well as others mentioned in statements that were made during the investigation.    Since the couple, however, chose to disclose the specific details through the mailing they sent out, the matter of protecting the reputations of those involved from further damage became a moot point.  A special meeting was held recently with the members of St. Peter/The CORE and a summary of all that has taken place in the past 11 months, including specific details, was presented to them. 

         

 Should you wish to have a fuller explanation of what occurred, how it was handled by the district, and specific details, you are encouraged to contact President Engelbrecht.  

          We also hope and pray that all those who have been involved in this situation will soon find peace in the forgiveness of sins through our Lord Jesus Christ and strength in Word and Sacrament to live in harmony with one another and serve their Savior to the glory of God.

NOTICE OF REQUESTS FOR CRM STATUS

          One of the reasons for the special meeting with the members of St. Peter/The CORE and for this letter to you is to give everyone more specific and accurate information on what has transpired in the past 11 months, especially in the light of a formal request that has been made by the pastor who resigned from the CORE for CRM status.    Our Wisconsin Synod does have a process for re-entry into the public ministry after a resignation/suspension/termination.   It involves:

·      a period of time away from the ministry (often a year, although in some cases it may be less), for the specific purpose of addressing the things that led to the resignation/suspension/termination

·      a formal written application for CRM status submitted to the District Presidium in the district in which the resignation took place,

·      notice being sent out to the district of the request and a solicitation for responses, either positive or negative

·      letters of recommendation from individuals designated by the District Presidium who could give an evaluation of the progress made by the applicant in resolving the issues that led to resignation/suspension/termination

·      a meeting with the District Presidium to discuss the request

·      a possible period of supervised service or internship as outlined by the District Presidium

·      a decision on granting CRM status by the District Presidium, after the interview and a review of all the material that has been submitted

According to the synod constitution the District Presidium has the sole responsibility for making a determination on granting CRM status.   In order to make that decision comments from those who wish to make them are taken into consideration.   

There are two such requests before our Presidium at this time.  James Skorzewski and Paul Fanning have requested consideration for CRM status.  Paul Fanning has been out of ministry for approximately a year and resigned from his call at St. John – Kaukauna, WI  when he remarried and moved to Nebraska.     James Skorzewski has been out of ministry since January 2013, (his resignation was requested and accepted by the District President at the end of December of 2012),  but has been addressing issues that led to his resignation for almost three years through Crosstrain Ministries.   

           

Comments on the two men seeking CRM status at this time may be sent to the District Office:

          welsnwpd@aol.com  or 249 E. Franklin Ave – Neenah, WI 54956

         

Doug [Engelbrecht]

***

Doug’s email: nwdp@wels.net

 

home phone: 920-722-3218

 

cell phone: 920-841-2809

  

Oh, and the newsdesk of the local newspaper:

 

pcnews@postcrescent.com 

GJ - This email shows what a joke the Anything Goes District has become under Deputy Doug Engelbrecht.

Ski resigned last December? Strange, it did not really happen until the April following -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/04/ski-has-resigned-effective-4-12-2013.html

Ski has been working on his problems through Crosstrain Ministries? That is another cancerous tumor from Church and Change, the WELS Fuller Seminary lobby that pretends to disappear when convenient, only to emerge again: larger, worser, meaner. 

These are the Jelly-Tele-Tubbies, apparently waving bye-bye,
but really smirking over their capture of WELS.

DP Patterson is one their coaches and charges a fee to coach people. I want to know how to organize parish spiritual retreats where the ladies bet on who is going to puke her guts out from alcohol first. Could I hire one of them coaches? Kudu Don Patterson is probably booked until the Second Coming, given his skills.

Ski was on the board of Church and Change until I published the names and photos of everyone on the board. It just happened that three Mark Jeske staffers were on the board - a co-inky-dink.

The letter identifies only one sin committed - the sin of dealing with the issues of pastoral alcoholism and repeated sexual harassment. Some have expressed wonder that I knew the facts involved in Ski's situation. DP Jon Buchholz knew all about it and laughed it off, back in 2009, when I brought it up to him.

Many realize this is a safe outlet to deal with matters, while the Mark Schroeder prescription of writing a letter is just another step toward being kicked out for the sin of writing a letter or trying to meet with the furtive Deputy Doug Engelbrecht. Therefore, I often receive information about the false doctrine and disgusting behavior of WELS pastors and teachers.

Those new to the situation should recall that Glende and Ski excommunicated a member, Rich Techlin, for correctly identifying both pastors as dishonest plagiarists. Naturally, Deputy Doug supported Glende and Ski 100%.

WELS endorsement of plagiarism:

http://vdma.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/dp-engelbrecht-on-plagiarism/ 

---

WELS Bethany in Appleton caught plagiarizing Swindoll:

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2010/08/bethany-appleton-wels-caught.html

Ski and Glende are disciples of Babtist Andy Stanley,
but if anyone is identified as reading this blog - Anathema sit!

The Preus Franchise Strikes Back - Robert Was Always UOJ - Claim Refuted Repeatedly by This Blog

Pastor Rolf David Preus (Rolf) Senior Member Username: Rolf Post Number: 7298 Registered: 5-2001

Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 2:24 pm:       Speaking of Robert Preus, ELDoNA falsely claims that he changed his position on objective justification before he died. The ACLC included responses from my brother Daniel and me to this false accusation against our father in appendix four of their official response to ELDoNA. Here is what I wrote: The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America – comprised of pastors who received their theological instruction in either the LCMS or the WELS – has now formally rejected the pure gospel they received from their teachers in these synods, attacking the doctrine of objective justification. Living in the land of the sects, we are accustomed to witnessing the formation of heterodox church bodies devoted to their pet heterodoxies. ELDoNA’s slide into formal heterodoxy might go unmentioned were it not for a specific calumny they are promoting in an effort to obtain credibility for their false doctrine. I am referring to their claim that my father, Robert Preus, changed his position on objective justification and rejected this teaching before he died. I do not boast when I say that no man alive is more familiar with my father’s teaching on this topic than I. He was not only my father; he was my teacher. I studied under him both formally and informally. I have read everything he wrote on the topic of justification. I took his class on justification and have his class notes, which I have studied thoroughly. He and I discussed theology with each other every time we talked and we talked often. We spent many hours talking about objective justification. I hereby state categorically and without any reservation that my father did not change his position on objective justification. He affirmed and confessed objective justification until the day he died. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to every error ELDoNA promotes in its formal statement on justification. Suffice it to say that they think they have discovered in the Lutheran dogmatic tradition a refutation of the doctrine of objective justification as taught by the Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and the Norwegian Synod. Since Robert Preus was an authority on Lutheran orthodoxy, ELDoNA seeks credibility by claiming him for their cause. Their “proof” that Robert Preus rejected objective justification before he died was his essay, “Justification and Rome,” in which he faithfully and meticulously set forth the classical Lutheran doctrine according to the historic language of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since the men of ELDoNA imagine a conflict between this language and that used by the Synodical Conference of nineteenth century America, they leap from this alleged conflict to the conclusion that Robert Preus had to reject the latter in order to affirm the former. This illustrates their own ignorance of Robert Preus’s lifelong teaching on the subject. As a matter of fact, he had always relied more on the classical language of the orthodox Lutherans than he did on the terminology that arose out of the nineteenth century controversies in America. But he saw no conflict at all in the substance of what they taught. ELDoNA insists that there is a difference between the acquisition of forgiveness and the pronouncement of forgiveness. Robert Preus was the chief author of the CTCR document of 1983 (approved by the 1986 convention of the LCMS) in which we read: “God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness.” These words from my father’s class notes on Justification help explain his position on this matter. The notes read: “Our Confessions are teaching universal justification whenever they say that remission of sins and justification are apprehended by faith.” He quotes Martin Franzmann to make the point that objective justification and subjective justification go together: “Though we distinguish between objective and subjective justification, it does not occur to us to separate them . . . We do not speak of two justifications; objective and subjective justification refer to the same act of God . . .” My father would frequently illustrate the importance of the doctrine of objective justification by asking the question: “Should I believe that if I believe my sins will be forgiven? Or should I believe that my sins are forgiven?” For him it was a vital, personal, and pastoral concern. Perhaps those who did not know my father might assume that he affirmed objective justification simply because it was the thing to do and that he hadn’t really given it sufficient thought until the end of his life and then rejected it when he examined the teaching of the sixteenth and seventeenth century dogmaticians. No one familiar with my father and his theology could come to such a conclusion. Dad’s devotion to objective justification was never merely academic. It was deeply personal. It never wavered. The notion that my father’s last written work on justification, “Justification and Rome,” differs in substance from his earlier writings is without foundation. Those who claim that my father changed his teaching on objective justification before he died simply display their own ignorance of what my father taught and how the Synodical Conference tradition is thoroughly grounded in the tradition of the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians, and, more importantly, in the clear Scriptures that teach that God, for the sake of the vicarious satisfaction of his dear Son Jesus, has declare the entire world of sinners to be justified. To deny this is to deny the universal redemption, atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation – indeed, the very idea of universal grace is lost if God did not justify all those whose sins Jesus bore on the cross. To deny objective justification is to turn faith into itself. Such a pietistic fideism is a necessary byproduct of a truncated atonement that doesn’t atone and a redemption that doesn’t redeem. My father was a lifelong enemy of pietistic fideism! Those who claim that my father changed his teaching on objective justification before he died bear false witness against him. As his son and student who received his best instruction from him and who continues to teach the pure gospel he taught, I call on these men to cease with their deceptions and distortions of a faithful teacher’s teaching. Claim their error for themselves, if they must – and bear the consequences – but don’t pretend that my father shared it. Rev. Rolf David Preus January 17, 2014 Pastor Rolf David Preus

Answering the Rolf Synod - Part II

http://eldona.org/theses-on-the-article-of-justification-a-refutation-of-the-aclcs-critique-part-two/

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN DIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA

Theses on the Article of Justification: A Refutation of the aclc’s Critique: Part Two

Posted on March 14, 2014 by Rev. Stefanski under Blog,Justification

Leave a comment

PART TWO: A MATTER OF DEFINITION

The ACLC’s critique concerning “First, a Matter of Definition” continues by introducing another red herring: there is no point in bringing up one’s supposed confusion over something said in a previous (unpublished) draft of a document, other than to paint the authors in a bad light. Thus, in the first two paragraphs (and four numbered points) the only thing to which to respond is the accusation “that a significant roadblock to unity in this doctrine is an inability on the part of the ELDoNA to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel, or at a minimum, a failure to recognize the proper distinction between Law and Gospel in various statements made by others including the Fathers of Lutheran Orthodoxy.” No evidence of this is given, but the accusation is made. While we know well the argumentation that usually accompanies such a claim, we will not address that at this point, lest it seem that we are accusing the ACLC pastors of agreeing with that faulty argument and, thus, be subject to claims that we are setting up a “straw man.” Since no evidence is given, there is nothing substantive to which we can respond.

The ACLC next brings up the Loci Theologici of Martin Chemnitz (as translated by J. A. O. Preus II and published by Concordia Publishing House in 1989), saying that Chemnitz “equates remission of sins, reconciliation, Justification, acceptance, and other terms as synonyms” “for example in Volume II on page 445.” To be more precise, on that page is simply the quotation from Melanchthon that Chemnitz expands upon over the next seven-and-a-half pages or so. It is true that Melanchthon says that the Gospel (which is the locus under discussion) is a matter of “the second kind of promise”—of that which is trusted in without the believer having to fulfill a condition to earn what is promised—through which one receives “the remission of sins or reconciliation or justification.” Melanchthon references Romans 4:16 to show how these things come to us: “Therefore it is freely by faith, that the promise might be sure.” The thing is, Melanchthon does not say that Man is (in any way) justified apart from faith, before faith, or any such thing. We have often seen others bring up these terms as synonyms because of a misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:18–19 (namely, that the text there should be taken as if it said, “God reconciled the world in Christ,” instead of what it actually says). The earlier Lutheran exegetes understood 2 Corinthians 5:18–19 to be making a careful distinction between the believer and the world.

It is a little surprising that p. 483 in this volume of Chemnitz’s Loci is not mentioned, where he actually speaks of “justification,” “reconciliation,” and other terms as being synonymous. However, when he does so, Chemnitz notes especially the use of synonymous terms by Sts. Peter and John as helping to prevent distortion of the term “justification” (and thereby the article of Justification), and shows by St. John’s use the same thing that he says about St. Paul’s use of “justification”: it always has to do with those who believe. There is no inconsistency here.

Thus, when the ACLC pastors state, “It is not possible to come to a meeting of minds in this matter unless one first understands that the fathers understood these terms to be interchangeable,” we must respond that it is not possible to come to a meeting of the minds unless one first understands the context in which there is interchangeability. Contrary to modern (i.e., from the rise of Pietism on) exegetes, the fathers did not take “atonement” and “reconciliation” as synonyms and then transfer that on to “justification,” as well, which is what “Objective Justification” does.

We could suggest that if the ACLC wants to speak beneficially about synonyms of justification, they should take note that the Book of Concord uses the word “regeneration” as a synonym of justification. Certainly, the Confessions do not suggest that God has, in His heart, objectively regenerated all sinners—nor do the pastors of the ACLC. Recognizing, therefore, that no Confessional definition of Justification embraces the entire world as those who have been justified by God, as well as that there is both strict synonymy and loose synonymy, we would already warn against forcing any loose synonymy into a dogmatic argument—but all the more so when, as we have shown in our “Theses,” the next generation specifically stated that it was wrong to apply either the term or concept of Justification to the whole world. (On the Confessional synonymy of “Justification” and “Regeneration,” cf. Ap: art. iii, par. 4; Ap: art. iii, par. 60; Ap: art. iii, par. 171; Ap: art. iii, par. 192; Ap: art. iii, par. 265; Ap: art. iv, par. 117; Ap: art. xii, par. 60; Formula: SD, art. iii, par. 18.)

The ACLC, curiously, takes issue with our making it clear to what we object when we reject, e.g., the “Brief Statement’s” assertion: “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ.” They note “that the theses define Objective Justification not according to any church body’s officially adopted statements, but ‘precisely and solely’ according to what is written in Pieper’s Dogmatics. We are unaware of anyone who has been held to Dr. Pieper’s precise and sole formulation as a requisite for ordination or continued listing on a clergy roster. In this way we are asked at the outset to accept a questionable premise.”

This is a nonsensical objection. First, there is no difference between what Pieper (chief architect of the “Brief Statement”) writes in his Christian Dogmatics and the position of the “Brief Statement.” Second, Pieper’s Dogmatics not only passed its initial doctrinal review by Concordia Publishing House, but remains the unchallenged dogmatics text book of, at least, the LCMS. We cite Pieper’s wording for its clarity and completeness; if the ACLC wishes to disown what Pieper teaches, there may be grounds for us to revisit this issue with them, but Pieper presents the LCMS position in its fulness, while the “Brief Statement” presents it in (as one would expect) brevity.

Furthermore, the ACLC itself cites (through their inclusion of comments by Rolf Preus in their fourth appendix) an official document of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod that says the same thing as Pieper, the LCMS’s 1983 CTCR “Theses on Justification,” commended by their 1986 convention:

By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness.        (Commission on Theology and Church Relations Thesis 23)

Again, the “Brief Statement” says, “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ”; that is enough to show that the Missourian position is, indeed, the same incorrect one espoused by Pieper in his Dogmatics, against which our “Theses” speak—and that it serves as a rejection of the ACLC’s shifting and obfuscatory non-definitions as much as our words do.

The ACLC next considers the definitions of “Objective Justification” which we presented and declared lacking—definitions that contradict the “Brief Statement,” but which were gathered from the agencies, auxiliaries, parishes, and official publications of the old Synodical Conference bodies. The ACLC states that, other than the first of them, they “have no particular issue with” them. Specifically, when we list the view that “Objective Justification” is seen by some as Justification being the object of faith, the ACLC pastors quote Chemnitz: “When ‘faith’ is concerned with external objects, it obviously signifies ‘desire,’ ‘trust,’ ‘expectation,’ and ‘petition’ for a mitigation or for aid or deliverance. The same will be the nature and meaning of ‘faith’ when it has to do with justification as its object.” Certainly…but that is not what “Objective Justification” means…and, in fact, this quote from Chemnitz and its context speak directly against what proponents of “Objective Justification” claim: page 494 (again in the two volume CPH edition of his Loci Theologici,translated by J. A. O. Preus II), “the papists try to force us to the conclusion that the promise of mercy for the sake of the Mediator is not the proper or principal object of justifying faith.” Note, not “the already-existing justification of the whole world,” but, as we have said, “the promise of mercy for the sake of the Mediator.”

On page four, having quoted a section from Johann Gerhard, the ACLC says, “Gerhard calls the justification of Christ as the absolution of the sins of the whole world the ‘apostolic teaching.’” Reading the quote, one can only be struck by how hard they are trying to make this teach “Objective Justification.” Gerhard does, indeed, say that Christ was absolved of the sins of the whole world; but he does not say that the whole world now stands absolved. Yet, the ACLC pastors hold to this false reading so tenaciously that they make the bizarre statement, “Regardless of what Gerhard may say there or elsewhere, however, in the quotation above he does not question the validity and nature of the apostolic teaching of Christ’s justification as an actual absolution of all for whom He died and for whom He was raised from the dead, as taught in 1 Timothy 3:16.” Speaking of logical fallacies, the pasting of presuppositions onto a text can hardly be worse than in this abuse of 1 Timothy 3:16, and the idea that a speaker or author’s own statements against what is put forth by others as “his position” are unable to be used to demonstrate that his position is or was, in fact, something else defies all logic.

We will speak more fully to this practice of selective quotation and misquotation that is so prevalent in defenses of “Objective Justification” in our next post, scheduled for this coming Monday.

Larry Who Has To Be Called Dr. Olson Or He Won't Answer Questions Olson. Intrepids: "Everyone Knows He's a Heretic, So He's Harmless."

Should WELS Congregations Serve ALL Students?

Posted on March 13, 2014 by zondagsj

Written by Lawrence Olson, D.Min. Fuller Seminary

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Making disciples: that’s the mission that God has given us. What a sacred responsibility! What a glorious privilege!

Readers of this blog may have noted that the question posed in the title above is patterned after a previous posting on this site that asked a similar question: “Should WELS Schools Serve ALL Students?” (emphasis added).[1] The author stated, “When staff cannot meet the educational needs of a student with a disability and thereby must send the student away, WELS schools have failed to provide the child with a Christ-centered education.” She concluded, “As we move forward and steps are taken to increase the number of individuals educated in this area, the hope is that we will stop turning students away because of special needs.”

A Christ-Centered Education

Let’s start with the concept of “a Christ-centered education.” My contention is that we should not equate that with any specific congregational program, including a Lutheran elementary school. An LES can be a wonderful strategic component in disciple-making, but ultimately the best “full-time Christian education” – modeled after Deuteronomy 6 and 11 – is provided by committed, faithful fathers and mothers who understand their critical, God-given role as “full-time Christian parents.” Those parents then partner with their church to nurture their children so that they can “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

How many of our congregations have a Fuller Seminary graduate? Almost exactly one in four, 25%.[2] How many of our congregations have programs of Christian education? All of them, 100%. Regardless of what specific program components an individual congregation may or may not have, we should take to heart the biblical perspective voiced by Ben Freudenburg[3]: “Parents are the primary Christian educators in the church, and the family is the God-ordained institution for faith-building in children and youth and for the passing of faith from one generation to the next.”[4] That is true for parents in all of our congregations, both with and without an LES; it is true for parents of a child with special educational needs and for parents of a child with typical educational needs. And the congregations that partner with those parents, whether they are one of the one-in-four or one of the three-in-four, need to consider the specific educational needs of each child entrusted to them as they nurture them in the faith.

Differences in Disability Require Differentiated Approaches

“Special education,” “special needs,” and “disabilities” are all expansive umbrella terms that cover a broad range of different items: visual or hearing impairment, ADD/ADHD, Down Syndrome, dyslexia, Autism Spectrum Disorders, EBD, developmental aphasia, and so on. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, originally passed by Congress in 1975 and updated several times since then, includes 14 general categories.[5] Within those categories there is also a range of disability; it is common for many of those categories to be evaluated as mild, moderate, severe, or profound. This reminds us of what good teachers have always known: individual differences need to be taken into account in order for there to be effective teaching and learning.

Dr. Alan Spurgin, in a previous entry in this blog, framed this point well: “Teachers need to work individually with all the children in the classroom. The key question is, How can teachers work with students of widely different abilities?” He went on to describe the answer provided by the “positive approach” of “differentiated instruction.” [6] That approach, which applies to what happens within an individual classroom, can be profitably broadened as we work with individual children with disabilities and their families.

Here’s what I mean. Depending on the nature and severity of the disability, a congregation with an LES might provide any one of the following options:

• Enrollment in the LES with appropriate accommodation by the teacher(s)
• Enrollment in the LES with accommodation and with support by a paraprofessional
• Enrollment in the LES with specific specialized education services provided by the local public school district
• Shared-time  enrollment in both the LES and the public school
• Enrollment in the public school with spiritual instruction from the congregation
• Home schooling with spiritual instruction from the congregation

Recognizing Our Limits

The typical WELS Lutheran elementary school has an enrollment of 70-75 students and a faculty of 3-4 teachers. Our teachers, most of whom serve in multi-grade classrooms, selflessly serve their Savior by investing long hours in their calling. They may not be able to free up the time needed to help a child with a disability succeed while still effectively serving the students with typical educational needs; even if they had the time, few may have the training and experience necessary to deal with a specific disability, especially if that disability is severe or profound. In addition, it is not uncommon for a child with a disability to need a one-on-one special education paraprofessional to succeed in the classroom, and a congregation may not have the financial resources needed to add those positions.

MLC has just launched a special education major that will lead to Minnesota state licensure as an Academic and Behavioral Strategist (ABS). The purpose of this initial license is to train teachers “to provide services to students with mild to moderate needs across a variety of disability categories.” That license is valid for five years; to renew it requires that a teacher “must also have a disability-specific license in one of the four licensure fields represented within the ABS license: Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Developmental Disabilities (DD), Emotional or Behavior Disorders (EBD), Learning Disabilities (LD).”[7]

The reality is that few, if any, of our schools would be able to call a fulltime special education teacher. What excites us about this new major is the opportunity to equip those who will serve as regular classroom teachers to be a helpful resource for the congregation’s special-needs children, their families, and the school faculty. With their multiple disability background, these teachers would also be uniquely equipped to serve as a liaison with the local public school district in accessing special education services available through it.

Not “Turning Away,” but Walking With

Paul talks about “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Sometimes love requires us to say things that are difficult but true. One of those things may be to say, “We love your child, and we treasure her as a child of God. However, because of her specific educational needs, our school doesn’t have the resources necessary to allow her to make the most of her God-given gifts. We will, of course, continue to support you and work with you as together we nurture her in the faith. And we will assist you as you work with the public schools to find the most appropriate educational path for her.”

I began my ministry some 30 years ago as a pastor in a mission congregation that was one of the three-in-four: we did not have an LES. There was a young man in our church with physical and cognitive disabilities. Specialists at several elite institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, were unable to identify his mysterious and progressive disorder. He would not have benefitted from our regular Sunday school or confirmation class. Instead, we provided one-on-one teaching and instruction, making use of the experience and expertise of a woman who was a special education teacher in an area public school. That young man was eventually confirmed, and he received the body and blood of his Savior in the Lord’s Supper. Today his disabilities are behind him as he celebrates at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

We did not fail that child or his family; one path is not appropriate for every child or family. However, whether that path includes an LES or not, whether that path includes the regular Sunday school and confirmation class or not, it is the responsibility and privilege of our congregations to walk those paths with them.

Answering the Questions

Let’s return to those questions. “Should WELS Schools Serve ALL Students?” No, not always. We can say that without any guilt or shame because the answer to the question, “Should WELS Congregations Serve ALL Students?” is yes. Always.

Dr. Lawrence Olson served as a parish pastor in Illinois from 1983 to 1993. Since then he has been a professor at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN, where he teaches a variety of undergraduate courses in practical theology, Christian doctrine, and biblical history and literature, and the graduate course Foundations of Ministry. He also serves as the Director of the Staff Ministry Program and of the Congregational Assistant Program.

References

[1] Emser, Tracy. “Should WELS Schools Serve ALL Students?” Issues in Lutheran Education, April 2, 2013.

[2] WELS 2012 Statistical Report.

[3] Freudenberg is a church worker in the Missouri Synod with more than 40 years of experience as a Director of Christian Education; we in the WELS would call him a staff minister. He currently is a professor in the graduate Family Life Program of Concordia University Nebraska.

[4] Freudenburg, Ben with Rick Lawrence. The Family Friendly Church. Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 1998.

[5] National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved fromhttp://nichcy.org/disability/categories.

[6] Spurgin, Alan. “Should Lutheran Teachers Use Differentiated Instruction?” Issues in Lutheran Education, February 13, 2014; “Differentiated Instruction: Helping All Your Students Achieve,” ibid., February 13, 2014.

[7] Minnesota Board of Teaching, “Frequently Asked Questions about the Academic and Behavioral Strategist (ABS) License.” Retrieved fromhttp://www.education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/Licen/SpecEdLicen/.