Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Ski's Insta-Call Discussed on Facebook

Facebook Message: This post has been removed or could not be loaded.

WELS attorney Rick Techlin's account of Ski/Glende bullying a church member in court can be found on this link.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204954201/10152903679194202

Christian Schulz
4 hrs
Admins: is there a reason Bryan's post was deleted?
LikeLike · 
  • Jeffery Clark Agreed, I would like to know too. As far as I know, it wasn't anything untruthful. Are we really afraid of the truth?
    4 hrs · Like · 6
  • Carolyn M. Schallert I'd like to know too, unless there are other circumstances at play here?
    4 hrs · Like · 5
  • Christian Schulz It's all public record and directly relates to the WELS. There is a pastor in the WELS who was removed for cause and was reinstated contrary to 1 Timothy 3. How is that something that should not be discussed?
    4 hrs · Like · 2
  • Christian Schulz This forum was established to discuss "important issues." Id say that this issue is important and should be discussed. Why was it deleted in lieu of the groups' own description of itself?
    4 hrs · Like · 1
  • Joe Jewell "All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it." 
    --Dr. Martin Luther 
    LC 284, "8th Commandment"
    4 hrs · Edited · Like · 7
  • Christian Schulz Carolyn, I'm not sure what other circumstances would be at play unless you mean that this is still an open investigation by Doug Englbrecht's district. For the record, it's not active and is history now. They decided, contrary to 1 Timothy 3 that he is above reproach and fit for ministry -- BUT he's not fit for ministry in his former district. But anyone with a rational mind will see the contradition. They're saying he's not fit for ministry in a particular district but is in another? What a joke they're making of 1 Timothy 3. So now he's okay for ministry in Texas but not northern Wisconsin. Sad state of affairs and it's a shame that there's an attempt by the admins here to sweep it under the rug. And it makes me ask, why. Why is there an attempt to sweep this under the rug, admins? Why? Do the qualifications for public ministry per 1 Timothy 3 mean nothing to you?
    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Carolyn M. Schallert they mean everything to me, the circumstances are that maybe we don't want to have this mess publicized? also maybe the district in Texas is investigating this issue, also there maybe more to it than you or I will ever see, I know full well the qualifi...See More
    3 hrs · Like
  • Chris Koschnitzke Christian, 

    I'm an admin on this page and I had nothing to do with deleting the post. Additionally, I have no idea who did it or what their reasons were for deleting it. I don't appreciate your broad, sweeping generalizations and assumptions that all     ...See More
    3 hrs · Like · 7
  • Christian Schulz Sorry about the broad brush. You're certainly right. I apologize to you and any other admin who I may have wrongly accused. Again, I'm sorry. I'll try to stay out of any further discussion. I tend to get irrationally passionate about certain topics.
    3 hrs · Like · 7
  • Jeffery Clark I don't see what 'other issues' there could be. The man now has a divine call, and was certified to be eligible for that call by the Northern WI district (just not in their district?!) there are some questions that need to be answered. Namely, if the person in question was eligible for a call and beyond reproach, as 1 Tim. states, why the restriction on where the call could come from?
    3 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Chris Koschnitzke Christian,

    Apology accepted. And I don't want you to stay out of any discussions, I just encourage you to have more of a tempered/level-headed approach.
    3 hrs · Like · 3
  • Jeffery Clark As a learned friend once said:

    "Yes, here is a man who is irreproachable (except in the Northern Wisconsin District) and an approved candidate for representing Christ to His people (except in the Northern Wisconsin District, where he is not approved),     and if the Lord of the Church extends a call to him through a congregation in this part of the state of Wisconsin, we will determine that the Lord has no right to extend such a call to that man whom we have approved for ministry."

    Not to mention the fact that he was issued a call almost immediately after being granted CRM status, necessitating an 'informational email' being sent to district pastors after the fact instead of asking for comments.
    3 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
  • Christian Schulz Chris,

    I agree. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Again, thanks for calling me out.
    3 hrs · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke I agree with Pastor Chris Koschnitzke. I think it would be beneficial to everybody in this conversation for the admin that deleted my original post to explain himself.
    3 hrs · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell I agree with everyone, lol. No good reason for the deletion at all BUT also no good reason to jump to conclusions about who did it.

    Discussion is usually more productive than deletions, accusations, and recriminations. I'm a discusser. 
    3 hrs · Edited · Like · 6
  • Jeffery Clark Kari....
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Daniel Baker What was the post that was deleted?
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke Well, I'd show you, but it might be taken down...
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Daniel Baker Oh, judging by the comments it must have been that post from Rick Techlin's "Light from Light" blog.
    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • Christian Schulz Well, the source being exposed, would anyone like to make any initial thoughts?
    1 hr · Like
  • Carolyn M. Schallert I looked it up and it appears that the source of the original item posted is biased, he was apparently discharged from the WELS by his church for non-WELS beliefs and I am hazarding a guess that this is why the original item was removed, however I am only guessing and am calling out the admin who deleted said post to please tell us his/her reasons so that this mess can get cleared up.
    55 mins · Like · 1
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser I read many of Rick's posts and have mixed feelings about most of what I read. I also attended services at one of the church locations he mentioned and was really turned off by the experience. I think this whole topic something I'll discuss with my Pastor.
    52 mins · Like
  • Christian Schulz I really dont think the blog author is biased. Hes an attorney who happens to be WELS and presented public, factual, court information. I think his, in my opinion, past legitimate problems with the WELS are irrelevant to this particular situation.
    51 mins · Edited · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke Carolyn, I think reading through his account would help. He essentially got his fellowship terminated because he had questions about why Pastor Glende plagiarized sermons from a non-denominational church. Here's the link for his letters:
    http://vdma.wordpress.com/church/

    Church
    vdma.wordpress.com
    Saint Peter Lutheran Church in Freedom, WI (WELS) was my life-long home congrega...See More
    50 mins · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell The bulk of the post was quotations from the official court record. Maybe the stenographer was biased?
    50 mins · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke Alyssa, I know what you mean. I went to one of the locations last summer and was turned off, as well. There was a Facebook check-in time at the beginning of the service. That should tell you something about priorities.
    48 mins · Like · 1
  • Christian Schulz As Bryan has posted, you can read his factual account of his experience with this particular church (campus?). It can amd will add to this story that is in question today. It doesnt make The CORE or St. Peter look any better in my opinion.
    48 mins · Like · 2
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser Wow, that's sad, Bryan. The location I went to had a 5 min or so responsive reading about Communion and then the entire congregation was proclaimed eligible to receive The Lord's Supper. I was shocked and didn't know what to do.
    43 mins · Like · 2
  • Christian Schulz That is not closed communion. Sad.
    42 mins · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke Wow, that's equally sad, Alyssa. That should *never* happen in a WELS congregation. Ironically, Rick would agree with me, so I guess he got terminated from fellowship because he does not believe in open communion?
    41 mins · Like · 1
  • Christian Schulz Also, those pastors of the locations continue to attend seminars led by false teachers of the Baptist/pentecostal persuasion. They literally attend these seminars led by false prophets and additionally plagiarize their material for their sermons. In su...See More
    37 mins · Edited · Like
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser I know, Bryan. The whole thing confuses me. I wonder if the synod is looking into this particular location. I also think there was more to do with the termination, however. There's a blog entry regarding doctrinal issues he has with the WELS on his ...See More
    37 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Yeah, there was more to the termination. I've been following this whole situation and it's just sickening seeing the lack of discipline going on here. The pastors plagiarized sermons, and that alone should be grounds for discipline. It's just pathetic how nothing has been done except to get rid of Rick because he was questioning these practices.
    34 mins · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Great point about how it could confuse a new person in the faith, Alyssa. I'm worried that since these actions continue to go on, new members won't actually learn Biblical doctrine and will be taught heterodox theology.
    32 mins · Like · 1
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser So in your opinion Bryan, are you saying this church group of 2 "campuses" terminated Rick for calling out their obviously questionable behavior?
    31 mins · Like
  • Joe Jewell Right. This is a man who is regularly communed and welcome at the altar of many WELS congregations in his area--just not at his home congregation. In a "normal" situation for someone who lives in Wisconsin [i.e. lots of WELS church options] and noticed this kind of practice at his home congregation, you would just quietly transfer. He decided to try to do something about it, and got burned.
    30 mins · Edited · Like
  • Bryan Lidtke Alyssa, I would say yes. From all the facts I've gotten regarding this, it seems as if the pastors were more concerned about getting in trouble than teaching correctly.
    29 mins · Like
  • Joe Jewell BTW, I'm very wary of this thread being deleted again now that it's once again discussing issues of substance, so be sure to save it, anyone who wishes to go back and read what's been said.
    29 mins · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Agreed, Joe. I certainly hope it doesn't since I've enjoyed discussing this and it obviously needs to be discussed since Alyssa saw the church practice open communion.
    28 mins · Like · 2
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser I see. I had never heard about any of this before today (other than my own experience at one of the locations). Thanks for the education. I'll have to read more about it on my own and possibly discuss it with my Pastor. I want to educate myself further before I form a definitive opinion about it.
    26 mins · Like · 2
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser I did, yes. My now husband was also with me, as were 2 of our friends. They were very open to the situation, however.
    25 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Completely understandable and a great idea! I'm sure that's all Rick would want you to do, as well. His blog does a great job at giving a detailed explanation of what's going on there.
    24 mins · Like · 1
  • Joe Jewell That's definitely smart. I would also recommend reading (and printing off and sharing with your pastor if you can) the extremely long blog post Rick Techlin wrote about his termination of membership at St. Peter's and the plagiarism he saw which precip...See More
    20 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser Yes, I skimmed some of that. I'll have to revisit it when I have a little more patience.
    17 mins · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke It takes a LONG time to read, but I think it's worth it to understand what's going on. 
    17 mins · Like
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser So, does anyone know if the synod is already investigating any of this?
    12 mins · Like
  • Bryan Lidtke I know SP Schroeder knows about it, but Rick's case hasn't been worked on in years. 
    10 mins · Like
  • Jeffery Clark They are not. However, people who aren't happy with the secret process that was used to grant CRM status to this pastor are attempting to bring it up again so that this "midnight CRM granting and have a call the next morning before anyone can object" stuff never happens again.
    10 mins · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell That's an excellent question, Alyssa. On which one? The pastors and the frivolous lawsuit against their parishioners, or the plagiarizing pastors?
    9 mins · Like
  • Jeffery Clark Yeah, on both cases (there really are just too many issues here... that alone should have set off warning bells), the big wigs know about the issues, but aren't really acting to do anything. Ski would've had his CRM status earlier, but people found out and objected - that is why it was kept "hush-hush" this time around.
    8 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser The Pastor you are referring to and the Pastor I mentioned are one in the same, that's why I took an interest in this. I'm absolutely not one to engage in this type of conversation via social media, otherwise.
    6 mins · Like · 1
  • Alyssa Fleischfresser Exactly. All of it. So many separate issues, yet they all seem to be linked.
    5 mins · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell Yes, that's true, although in both cases it's kinda-sorta two pastors (but the same two). 

    To answer your question, I think both issues are "officially" considered closed and settled by the relevant Districts, and the Synod doesn't really have any st    anding to do anything about it, since (on the first one) the CRM and subsequent insta-call are a done deal, and (on the second one) a layperson has no right to appeal a suspension to the Synod. On the second one, I rejoice that there are many brave and faithful WELS pastors still willing to serve Rick and welcome him to their congregations' altars, both inside and outside his District.
    4 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Social media certainly has its drawbacks, but if we didn't have it we wouldn't have been talking to begin with! But I totally understand, Alyssa.
    4 mins · Like · 2
  • Rik Krahn Jeffery Clark, while I can't defend what was done regarding this particular CRM case, and disagree with it, that's not quite accurate, nor charitable.
    4 mins · Like
  • Joe Jewell Rik Krahn I think there's some merit to what you're saying. It should certainly be kept in mind that in both cases even if (say) the Synod President had wanted to act, he doesn't really have any formal authority to intervene in a District's matters. (One can argue over whether he should have used his considerable informal moral authority, though.)
  • Rik Krahn And I know personally the men who made this decision, and I respect them. I disagree (quite strongly, and vocally) with this decision, but it was not done "hush-hush" with the intent that people not find out about it.
    10 mins · Like
  • Joe Jewell It is difficult to argue that it wasn't done extraordinarily quickly, though. How many days elapsed between CRM status and the call?
    7 mins · Like · 1
  • ---
New discussion -
Bryan Lidtke
2 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?
LikeLike · 
  • Jeffery Clark and 3 others like this.
  • Joe Jewell Shameful, shameful indeed. Are we not children of the light?
    2 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.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • 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.
    1 hr · 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.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • 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.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Josh VanKleek Ok I'm lost. What is all this about. What is trying to be hidden and what is the controversy.
    59 mins · Edited · Like · 2
  • Joe Jewell Rik Krahn amen to that!! I agree, it stems from a misunderstanding of the 8th Commandment and Matthew 18.
    45 mins · Edited · Like · 2
  • 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.
    33 mins · 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.
    26 mins · Edited · Like · 2
  • Josh VanKleek Bryan can you pm me the link
    14 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Bryan Lidtke Sure thing!
    14 mins · Like · 1
  • 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.
    10 mins · 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.
    9 mins · Like · 1
  • 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.    ...See More
    5 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • 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 n...See More
    4 mins · Like · 1
  • 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!
    1 min · Like
  • 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.
Posted by Ichabod the Glory Has Departed at 10:07 PM
Labels: