Raising Money for WELS

Dear Members,

Last week, we were made aware of the challenging situation facing the WELS Synod and it's mission funding. Here are the basics of it:

Synod passed what they thought was a conservative missions budget at district convention in 2013. After looking at historical giving trends, they budgeted for a 4% increase in funding (2 - 3% is required just to keep up with increasing costs). However, commitments from churches actaully (sic) dropped by 1% for 2014. So, that leaves a 5% shortfall between the increase they had budgeted for and the decrease of 1%. In a budget their size, that equates to a $1.2 million shortfall. This means that if that gap was not made up for in some way, there would need to be cuts made. [Synod salaries and benefits? Never.]

The Synod wanted to present these facts to the congregations to provide them with an opportunity to help make up for the gap in funding to prevent cuts. Here are some of the potential cuts:

• At least two new home missions would not happen. [No more bars for Glende? O no!]
  
• Several vacant positions in world missions would not be filled. [They are forgiven already - and saved.]
  
• Funding for some existing home missions will be reduced. [Patterson may have to go back to work.]

In fact, those of us at X have experienced first hand how much of a challenge it can be when funding is cut to an existing mission as we experienced this ourselves in the past. It definitely is not something easy for a small congregation to withstand.

No more bunnies to pet on Easter, to make it relevant?

These cuts are scheduled to begin to be made in early July. So, we have until the last full week of June to let the Synod know if we will be able to increase our giving for 2014.

If this is an opportunity that appeals to you to show your thanks for everything the Lord has blessed you with, please let Pastor  or myself know what amount you would like to give no later than June 22nd. Please remember, this needs to be above and beyond your normal weekly offering to New Hope.

You can either respond to this email with an amount or talk to Pastor  or myself on Sunday and let us know what amount you would like to contribute.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Episcopal Church Officials Grabbed the Soper Trust - Just Like WELS Stealing St. John in Milwaukee - And Its Endowment

WELS stole this independent congregation, which they had previously kicked out of WELS,
and took its endowment fund.
Why? So they could close the doors and keep the loot.

Diocese of Washington Gains Control of Mrs. Soper’s Millions
Soper Trust Terminated. Diocese now controls over $26 million

By Sarah Frances Ives
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
June 12, 2014

For the past forty years, the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has been the beneficiary of the Ruth Gregory Soper Trust fund. Constructed as a trust handled by Riggs Bank and then its successor PNC Bank, the diocese received interest from the body of her money. 
Under PNC’s careful investments, the trust had developed from about $7 million into over $26 million dollars. 

In 2010 in a bold attempt to get control of the money, the administration of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington initiated legal action against the Ruth Gregory Soper Trust and its trustee PNC bank. This bank waged a valiant battle against these Diocese of Washington officials, yet ultimately failed. Secret maneuvers and agreements sealed the fate of the Soper trust.

Even though PNC bank persistently asserted that the Diocese of Washington's plans violated the expressed intentions of Ruth Gregory Soper, on April 11, 2013 a judge from the circuit court of Montgomery County, Maryland, signed a court order terminating the Soper Trust.

This long struggle began in 1967 when Mrs. Ruth Gregory Soper carefully constructed her will to make a lasting legacy out of her money obtained from Texas oil. She gave financial bequests to many organizations and people, including George Washington University, St. Alban’s School, and other Episcopal entities. Mrs. Soper made direct financial gifts to other people and institutions yet for the diocese, she had requested that the bank handle the money and not the diocese. In recent years all of the people to whom she left money died, so the diocese was the only remaining beneficiary. 

When the Diocese of Washington became short of money in the last 15 years, the administration began to use interest from the Soper Trust for its operating costs. Within the diocese, numerous arguments and resolutions came out of the internal conflict over the Soper Trust, including a successful 2002 convention vote requesting that the administration of the diocese cease from using her money for operating costs and use it only for direct ministries to help suffering humanity. 

Diocesan officials continued its practice of using the Soper money for operating expenses. Then in 2010 without making this information known publicly to the General Convention of the Diocese of Washington, officials quietly initiated the lawsuit to end the Soper Trust. Now speculation exists why the Diocese of Washington felt in need of financial resources to fight for control of the entire trust. After the release of future financial documents from the diocese, the trail of money should be traced to see where money, initially designed for ministry, eventually lands.

Final court papers highlight the major turning points in this lengthy lawsuit. After the Diocese of Washington began the lawsuit, PNC bank requested that Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler participate in order to help retain Mrs. Soper’s original intention to only give the interest from her body of money to the diocese. 

To obtain Gansler’s assistance, PNC also argued that the Soper trust needed to be protected because she intended to have a future beneficiary in case the Episcopal Church became extinct or lost its charitable tax-exempt status. Gansler denied the PNC request. In legal documents from 2/23/2011, Gansler stated that this prospect of a change in status for the Episcopal Church is "too remote or speculative to justify the Attorney General's participation in the proceedings." (pg 6) So Gansler's refusal to be involved hindered the protection of Mrs. Soper's trust.

Following this, PNC bank requested that the United States District Court for Maryland dismiss the Diocese of Washington's action. The court refused this legal request. With this, the PNC bank suffered its second loss. This case now bounced back to Montgomery County circuit court.

Following these two losses, PNC bank made a confidential agreement with officials from the Diocese of Washington. The secret details of this agreement are not known. What is known publicly is that PNC bank agreed to resign as trustee of the Soper Trust and allow
the Diocese of Washington to nominate a new trustee to care for this trust. 

After this, the powerful annihilation of the trust moved rapidly. PNC bank resigned as the Soper Trust trustee on about February 5, 2013 in a letter signed by its vice-president Leslie S. Carter. The letter stated that the Diocese of Washington nominated as the trustee Thomas D. Murphy, a lawyer with Murphy and Mood in Rockville, Maryland. Murphy agreed to this position and on about April 3, 2013, the judge designated Murphy as the new trustee in place of PNC bank. Murphy remained as trustee for about 8 days. Following his brief tenure, in cooperation with the Diocese of Washington Murphy agreed to allow the court to terminate the Soper Trust.

On April 11, 2013, the Soper Trust was terminated and the financial bequest of about $26,300,000.00 was handed over to the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.

So this long saga, beginning with Mrs. Soper’s generous contributions to many charities, ended sadly. In 1967 when designing her will, Ruth Gregory Soper believed that her money and its ensuing legacy be supervised by a bank she trusted, Riggs Bank and its successor, PNC Bank. The Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler seemed to consider the Soper Trust almost inconsequential and refused to help preserve this over 40-year-old trust. 

As the trustee, PNC struggled to honor Mrs. Soper’s wishes, yet their lawyers lost the war following court decisions. A second trustee, Thomas D. Murphy, took the lead of the Soper Trust and, in less than two weeks, allowed the entire trust to be terminated and the money turned over to the financially strapped Episcopal Diocese of Washington. 


Sarah Frances Ives is VOL's Washington correspondent

WELS Members Ask Why a Legitimate Post (Techlin Link) Was Taken Down. Hilarity Ensues

Bryan Lidtke

7 hrs

Admin(s), I must say I'm disappointed. I certainly hope that the admin who took Christian's post and my post down is writing an explanation as I'm typing. What was wrong with the discussion in Christian's thread?

Mark Parsons As the one who deleted "THE POST" I came back "late to the party" on this thread last night. I was planning to respond this morning at length, but Dan Babinec and Chris Koschnitzke have already well summarized what I would write. If there are individuals who would still like to speak with me personally, I would be willing to participate in that dialogue.

LikeLike · Share

• Jeffery Clark, Daniel Baker and 7 others like this.
• 

  Joe Jewell Shameful, shameful indeed. Are we not children of the light?

  7 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Rik Krahn It is definitely within the powers of the administrators of this page to take down posts. Although I didn't see anything in the last one that warranted it, obviously at least one of them did. But I also feel that they should explain to the rest of us their reasons for doing so - if only so that we can avoid breaking their unwritten rules in the future.

  6 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Bryan Lidtke ^ Exactly. I understand that they certainly can take down posts. I just don't see why they can't explain it to us so that we don't do it again.

  6 hrs · Like
• 

  Joe Jewell Rik Krahn this repeated deletion of factually true, public material (again: transcripts from open court! Public actions of DPs!) also kind of puts the lie to the idea that there aren't those who REALLY want to squelch any knowledge or discussion and would frankly like to keep it all as secret as possible.
  
  Guys deleting this stuff: I understand that you are ashamed of what your synod (really, to be fair: just a small subset of it directly--but they weren't stopped) has done in this situation. I am too. But hiding it isn't going to help--it will only compound the issue.

  6 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
• 

  Rik Krahn Joe, I'm sure that there are those who want to keep this quiet. But my assumption is not that it is motivated by a desire for secrecy, but out of a misunderstanding of the 8th Commandment and Matthew 18. When Jesus said (paraphrasing) "talk to your brother first" he did not stop there. A public discussion of these public issues is fitting, because we're several steps down the road (as you yourself have properly quoted the 8th Commandment from the Large Catechism). Yet this type of public discussion makes some uncomfortable, (I think) because they think we are violating the 8th Commandment and Matthew 18. And we also need to remember that the men who made these decisions with which we don't agree are not the same people deleting these posts, so we need to be careful accusing those men of a desire for secrecy. But, as you said, trying to sweep it all under the rug exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.

  6 hrs · Like · 4
• 
  
  
• 

  Josh VanKleek Ok I'm lost. What is all this about. What is trying to be hidden and what is the controversy.

  6 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
• 

  Joe Jewell Rik Krahn amen to that!! I agree, it stems from a misunderstanding of the 8th Commandment and Matthew 18.

  6 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
• 

  Rik Krahn Joe, if we agree on that, then we agree that we need to be careful with how we speak about others. I don't think this is a bunch of guys in some smoky back room twisting their moustaches, bent on evil. I don't think their desire is secrecy; I think their desire is to do the right thing. We can disagree that what they did is the right thing (and I do disagree), but even those who are trying to keep it quiet (like, apparently, one or more administrators of this page), I don't think they're trying to "hide" anything. They think they are following God's Word, by not talking about someone else. We can disagree with their actions, but we need to be careful questioning their motivations.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Josh, a pastor who sexually harassed his secretary took the secretary's husband to court. Another pastor and the two current secretaries also took him to court. So, in short, a man was taken to court by 2 pastors because his wife was sexually harassed by the one pastor. Both pastors were and still are WELS and it's a very scary situation. I'd post the link, but I'm sure that it would be deleted.

  5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
• 

  Josh VanKleek Bryan can you pm me the link

  5 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Sure thing!

  5 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Holly Dannecker I am an admin, and I didn't take anything down. What I would like to know is if you feel these types of posts help or hinder His kingdom.

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke I think it hinders His kingdom when we have pastors who have sexually harassed members not get disciplined, but get a new call instead.

  5 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Joe Jewell And when we are told, simultaneously "it's all ok" and "this public action of people in the public ministry... Isn't public."
  
  If it's all meet, right, and salutary, surely no harm arises from discussing it in the light of day. This was never private.
  
  Glende even said "it's quite a story how he got down here, you'll have to hear it!" at the installation. And you know what? For once, I agree with him. It IS quite a story and they DO have to hear it.

  5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
• 

  Rik Krahn Holly, I won't be quite as strong as Bryan. A decision was made that many question. It was a public decision, about public actions. I don't think we ought be questioning the motivations behind these decisions, but discussing the decision itself is not wrong. These are issues that are dividing God's people, and that division will not be healed by ignoring it and hoping it will go away. So an open discussion - as long as we are treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ - can only help. Trying to squelch discussion makes it look like something is being covered up (even if there is no cover-up), and our sinful natures will run with that. That will hurt the Kingdom.

  5 hrs · Like · 6
• 

  Bryan Lidtke I hope that I wasn't implying a conspiracy, Pastor Krahn. I was just stating what happened, although it certainly does imply motives, so my apologies. I also think that everyone in these conversations has been respectful of each other and treating each other well, so I see no issue in the discussion!

  5 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Paul Lidtke Officially, the retiring District President of the Northern Wisconsin District would tell you that the pastor in question may not have sexually harassed his executive assistant according to the official definition of sexual harassment. He will tell you that what the pastor did was "boorish." What is to be decided is if this "boorishment" means that this pastor ought to be reinstated as a WELS pastor. We all know that he has been. Rik Krahn, you may know, though, that not everyone on the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium voted to allow this. That pastor, however, has not wanted to make this as public as others would wish. I agree, more discussion is better, especially since the pastors of the Northern Wisconsin District were at one time asked to give their thoughts on the CRM status. It was denied. A few mere months later, it was granted without any more input. Conspiracy theories will always thrive where open discussion is not allowed. And I do believe this is a public matter in the Northern Wisconsin District. Will it be discussed at next week's convention? Probably not.

  5 hrs · Like · 4
• 

  Joe Jewell Yes, quite honestly, with the exception of the inappropriate deletions, I think this has been a respectful, honest, and exemplary discussion.

  5 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Holly Dannecker I promote open discussion, and if you feel strongly about this topic why not post it to your own wall? (I'm assuming thats already been done?) I am reaching out and telling you that one admin took it down (not the rest of us) and people must consider that there are many types of audiences on the WELS page. Some are newly WELS and this could be confusing. Will you agree that this could also be hurtful?

  5 hrs · Like
• 

  Joe Jewell No, I disagree with that actually. I think trying to suppress something like this is hurtful.
  
  Also: it's confusing to me and I've been a member of WELS congregations since my infant baptism!!

  5 hrs · Edited · Like · 5
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Wouldn't we want the newly WELS members to know of this so that they don't believe the false things that these pastors have taught? If your pastor sexually harassed a member, would you want a new WELS member to know of that? This is quite hurtful, yes. It hurts the couple involved very much, and that's not right.

  5 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Josh VanKleek So I'm confused are we as WELS getting back in bed with the Catholic Church? This sound exactly like what they do anytime a pastor is involved in something he shouldn't be. They shush the whole thing up sweep it under the rug and ship the pastor across the country. The whole synod should know about this and it should have been dealt with properly, reinstatement is not properly. Hiding it is not properly, in fact that hurts us and hurts new members and those new to faith. We can't have a something like this happen and then try to sweep it away like nothing happened. That gives fuel to the people who would try to hurt the church and who want to see God completely removed from our society. We as a synod must meet things like this head on and in public, if we truly have nothing to hide.

  4 hrs · Like · 5
• 

  Joe Jewell "We as a synod must meet things like this head on and in public, if we truly have nothing to hide."
  
  Precisely. How much credibility did the Catholic Church lose, shuffling around priests secretively? And I'd argue that most of the loss of trust was because of the coverup and the denials and the "we-can't-talk-about-thats", not the underlying sins.

  4 hrs · Like · 4
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Amen, Josh!

  4 hrs · Like
• 

  Megan Kennedy Perhaps writing an email for explanation (as a WELS member) would have been a more thoughtful form of communication than an internet thread??!?!?!

  4 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Emails have been written, and nothing has happened 

  4 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Joe Jewell I agree, Megan, every member of the WELS (that is, every pastor and teacher, and every member congregation) should have been notified that this man was being reconsidered for CRM status after he had already been rejected once, and then a full explanation should have been emailed to all of the above and available to every member of a WELS congregation as well. This was necessary to do given the cross-country shuffle a couple of DPs were considering. the extraordinarily public nature of the offense, and the very public (apparent) lack of repentance shown by filing suit against the victim of the harassment.
  
  I'm not sure why it wasn't done, but I agree with you, it should have been.

  4 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
• 

  Josh VanKleek Megan I can see how that would help one person, but that does not satisfy the whole of the synod. Not addressing this publicly makes it look like we have something to hide. If the synod came out and said there was behavior by a pastor that is not in cohesion with what a pastor should be doing and that pastor had been removed I don't think we would be having this discussion right now. That didn't happen and that is a problem.

  4 hrs · Like · 6
• 

  Joe Jewell Exactly. If the man was not a pastor now there would be no compelling reason to publicize it further. That is--apparently--the resolution that most of the pastors in his district thought had been reached. Then the victim was sued frivolously (note: the judge threw it out at a preliminary hearing! no merit whatsoever) and he was very quickly restored in a non-unanimous decision without time for any further input--THAT is the point at which it needed to be publicized again, and the process slowed to allow for public discussion--actually it should have been well before then.
  
  Actions like this, if they are to be taken at all, need to be done in the full light of day that there may be no cause for reproach or distrust.

  4 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
• 

  Megan Kennedy Oh my

  3 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Jeffery Clark I'm still waiting for the admin who removed the posts to own up to it and explain why...

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Rachel Giller o.k.......I know that I stepped in last night at one time - and I am going to step in again. The Pastors did not sue the "victim's" husband. They went to court to get a restraining order against him. 
  
  "Specifically, they asked a secular court to issue four restraining orders." 
  
  There is a difference. Did they feel threatened? We do not know the exact words or actions that the husband of the victim has taken or used. We all know how irate a person can be when they are verbally attacked or a loved one is verbally attacked. Are they trying to hide something? Was he hindering their ministry?? Who am I to know??? There is a HUGE difference between suing someone and asking for a court ordered restraining order. One you generally are going after money or services, the other they want to keep you far, far away from them.
  
  I always find it a sad day when we as WELS members feel the need to take our church business into the public courts. To me, it means that we have failed ourselves and our fellow believers in being able to handle a situation amongst ourselves in a Christian like manner. 
  
  In the end - I suggest that we all pray fervently for all parties involved and pray that the Lord will guide our conversations so that we are always glorifying His name!

  2 hrs · Like
• 

  Jeffery Clark sue verb \ˈsü\
  : to use a legal process by which you try to get a court of law to force a person, company, or organization that has treated you unfairly or hurt you in some way to give you something or to do something : to bring a lawsuit against someone or something

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Jeffery Clark Petitioning a court to grant a restraining order of protection from a person requires you to bring a lawsuit against that person, so you most certainly are suing that person.

  2 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
• 

  Bryan Lidtke The husband went to a meeting about what happens with his wife to defend her. The pastors didn't like that, so they took him to court. How does that show repentance? But yes, they certainly need our prayers! 

  2 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Joe Jewell Yes, you definitely "sue" to get a restraining order. The person who posted the court transcripts and commentary using that language is an attorney in the relevant state (Wisconsin), FYI.

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Joe Jewell "...Did they feel threatened? We do not know the exact words or actions that the husband of the victim has taken or used. We all know how irate a person can be when they are verbally attacked or a loved one is verbally attacked. Are they trying to hide something? Was he hindering their ministry?? Who am I to know???"
  
  Well, the action of the judge--tossing the four petitioners out without even needing to hear the defense--certainly gives us some clue (assuming that you actually would like to know). Also the fact that the transcripts are a matter of public record... It's all there in the blog post, very well-documented too.

  2 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
• 

  Rachel Giller And in laymen's terms - how many people do you know that when they hear the word "sue" they automatically assume that they are going after money or property??? I know that when I hear or read the word sue, I do not automatically think restraining order. I am not here to argue - but to me, because no one on here has any answers continuing the conversation is like beating a dead horse. it is dead, it is not going to go anywhere, and after awhile it starts to harm - even those who are trying in the most upright way to get the answers that they desire. I guess if you guys really want answers, "storming the castle" could possibly get you somewhere (in other words, show up at convention and start asking questions) - but then again, it could get you in the same spot as the husband and have a restraining order brought against you!

  2 hrs · Like
• 

  Joe Jewell ...And then have it tossed out by the court immediately because it's completely frivolous. Right? Because it would be. 
  
  I have to say that I am frankly appalled at your lack of regard for the victim here. (Even using scare quotes: "victim"!) If anyone had actual cause to sue for a restraining order, it was her. In not doing so--frankly, in not suing the pastor or the church at all--she and her husband showed great restraint and admirably Christian behavior. All the more appalling the actions that were taken against them.

  1 hr · Like · 2
• 

  Rachel Giller Joe - unfortunately I am not perfect. I started out with the word in quotes and if you read further on - I chose not to use them and I did not go back and remove them. I am sorry. I have regard for both sides of the story. Again - unfortunately both sides are not here to defend their sides. I am trying to keep an open mind - but when all you see and read is the condemnation of one side it is very hard to keep an open mind. I am trying because I personally do not have all the facts. Only the facts that are in the court transcript - and that does not include any of the conversations that happened behind closed doors between the pastors, DP, the administrative assistant etc. So the courts found it frivolous to throw out. Good. Praise God that the family chose to show mercy and not bring a lawsuit against the church. You are right - they showed Christian love and mercy. As I said earlier. We just need to pray fervently for all parties involved and pray that the Lord will guide our conversations so that we are always glorifying His name!

  1 hr · Like
• 

  Joe Jewell I know that it is in many cases a "protective" impulse that causes some to feel this shouldn't be discussed or known. 
  
  But I would like to point out that just the same thing motivates those of us who feel that some sunlight is a very healthy thing in this kind of situation. I wish to protect my church's integrity--not just the appearance of integrity, but the reality. I think Josh VanKleek above made an excellent point. Quietly moving problems around, with no chance for parishioner or public discussion, and every effort made to silence those taken advantage of, is *exactly* what caused so much harm to the reputation of the Roman Catholic church.

  1 hr · Edited · Like · 4
• 

  Megan Kennedy Who on this thread has personal ties e.g. A membership to this particular Church within our synod? I am aware of other Pastor's losing this God given calling because of their actions (despite their repentance). I trust that our Synod took the correct measures as I was not directly involved with this church. A family member happens to attend the Church, she received a letter. Not the ENTIRE synod?!?!?
  
  To compare our Church to the Catholic Church is something I find very offensive!

  1 hr · Like
• 

  Megan Kennedy My family member's church being a different one than the one being discussed here!

  59 mins · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke I just met with some of the people directly involved in this the other day, actually.What's so offensive about comparing the WELS and the Roman Catholic Church in this situation? A pastor sexually harasses his former secretary, so he gets a call across the country. Do you really think that sounds nothing like the Catholic Church? I'm offended that this happened to begin with. How on earth does this *not* sound like the Catholic Church?

  56 mins · Like · 4
• 

  Chris Koschnitzke The admin who deleted the posts in question identified himself/herself to me. I have encouraged this individual to chime in and explain his/her rationale for the deletions.
  
  In his/her comments to me, this admin expressed frustration at the direction this page has gone recently. And because of that frustration, he/she has also expressed a desire to bow out of this group altogether.
  
  I share that same frustration. I have been on vacation this week, and yet, because of the posts made in this group this week I have received multiple messages/phone calls about said posts. It's not my idea of a relaxing vacation getaway. 
  
  I fully understand the points both sides are making. They are both equally valid. There are things in this situation that leave serious question marks and concerns about how things were handled. And while I believe it is permissible to talk about this topic because of its public nature, I have strong reservations about whether it is beneficial to do so for this reason: Does such a discussion help to build and edify God's kingdom or does it hurt it? I am of the opinion it does more to hurt God's kingdom, especially in a forum such as this. 
  
  I know for a fact that a number of the participants in this discussion are members of the Northern Wisconsin district, where this situation took place. I encourage those of you who are in that district to work together to have this addressed by your district leadership, perhaps even at your upcoming district convention. I don't want to hear that you've tried that and nothing happened. If you're as passionate about this as you appear to be in this forum, try again, and again, and again.
  
  A common theme in the correspondence I've had with members of this group over the the last few months is that this page has been overtaken by a select few who seem more interested in airing their grievances about the WELS ad nauseum, rather than building up the kingdom and encouraging one another. This page was not created to be a place where the masses are enlightened about the mistakes WELS makes or that they are taught why the WELS doesn't do things the "right" way. This page was created so that other WELS members in this country and around the world could simply have a place to connect with one another. I'd prefer it stays that way.
  
  I see no good explanation for how discussing this in this forum is beneficial or good for anyone. All it illustrates is that we still remain members of the church militant. Sin will continue to affect it until it becomes the church triumphant on the Last Day. But there are proper avenues for such a discussion to take place. Use those avenues. Be persistent. And whether or not you get the response you desire, know that the Lord is the one in control of all things and he promises to work ALL things for the good of those who love him.

  48 mins · Like · 2
• 

  Megan Kennedy I find our church to be defined by more than this instance sir, and in all due respect I would not throw our Synod in the proverbial pot with Catholicism as a member.
  It is fine to call for further investigation if you feel the Pastor in question was not dealt with appropriately... IMHO I would not use FB for these discussions period. Just as I stumbled upon this conversation and feel misinformed by individuals whom I do not know. It doesn't feel appropriate to me... Sorry!

  47 mins · Like
• 

  Megan Kennedy Jeff Samelson (Pastor), would you agree? Do you think FB is the place for this type of discussion?!?!?

  44 mins · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke My apologies if I'm one of the select members. I'd like to think the memes I post lighten the mood (or keep it light), but hey, everyone has their own opinion. And please, whoever deleted the previous posts, I'm not gonna burn you at the stake! Just explain yourself, I think we would all appreciate it and it would help you, as well.
  
  Now, on the side of the page here, the group is described as "Just a group for all WELS Lutherans, especially students." It's also described as a place to "talk about important topics." If this doesn't count as important, I don't know what is.

  39 mins · Like · 2
• 

  Joe Jewell Bryan, I think you lighten the mood frequently and I enjoy your memes! It is so good to have young people actively posting. 

  38 mins · Like · 4
• 

  Jeffery Clark
  

  
  

  

  19 mins · Like · 1
• 

  Jeffery Clark Sorry, but I felt like a little humor might lighten the mood. 
  
  Yes, sometimes things don't show us in the best light, but that isn't necessarily bad. When I go look into something, if all I see is positive posts and no problems whatsoever, red flags fly. As the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. 
  
  I'd prefer people seeing us fixing our problems, with God's guidance, rather than sweeping them under the rug.

  15 mins · Like · 4
• 

  Megan Kennedy Some might say that about the message of Jesus Christ and His forgiveness... I think as a public forum our Church should use our posts to point to what so many already believe is "too good to be true" IMHO!

  8 mins · Like
• 

  Daniel Baker If the Administration here is too overwhelmed with their duties, I'm sure there are other individuals who would be happy to pick up the slack. I for one nominate Bryan Lidtke, who does a stand-up job administrating Confessional Lutheran Teens and Young Adults, among other groups.

  8 mins · Like · 2
• 

  Bryan Lidtke Aww, Daniel, you'll make me blush. But if you need a new admin, I'd do it. I'm not sure the administration would like that, though...

  5 mins · Like · 1
• 

  Jeffery Clark Megan, yes, we should always endeavor to proclaim the Gospel. However, that is not the primary purpose of this Facebook group. To quote the group's description: "This group can be a good place for us to support each other, talk about important topics, and pray."

  4 mins · Like
• 

  Daniel Baker I don't see why not. You're a level-headed young adult who is interested in theology and the Church. It's everything we should be looking for in potential leaders. And you're not a rabble-rouser like some people.

  4 mins · Like · 2
• 

  Megan Kennedy Think I'll unfollow our FB open group for now. 

  3 mins · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke  The more the merrier, Megan!

  2 mins · Like
• 

  Megan Kennedy Enjoy the page Bryan Lidtke

  1 min · Like
• 

  Bryan Lidtke You can too, Megan!