Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Anonymous Snark to Rick Techlin

Anonymous makes a snarky offer.
http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/accessible-worship-how-did-it-start-and.html?showComment=1424835746064

Rick, so you mean to tell me that you were not publicly making your views known but somehow the internet found out about your 29 page letter? You are right, it isn't like you shouted over people at meetings but you did make your views known at every opportunity.

So tell me this: How did your private views end up on the internet? Do you just have the worst friends ever? Do you believe this plot runs so thick that the council at St. Peter planted some kind of a false flag? Or were you not nearly as quiet as you think you are?

I hope you don't take this as snarky. I really do want to know and I think it will clear things up for people following along. If you really were intending this to be a simple theological question between the called leaders of St. Peters and yourself, how did it end up so public?

I will tell you what, I will divulge who I am if you divulge how something you meant as private ended up on the internet and then as public as it did. To me, either you didn't keep it as private as you claim or we are talking a big time conspiracy.


Also, Pastor Lidtke stated that you stood up "many times at public meetings" of St. Peter to ask if the confessions could be emphasized. Would you also say that this is accurate? Would you say that your comments were simply encouragements and you never accused your pastor or leadership or congregation of false teaching? You would agree, as Pastor Lidtke stated, that you often stood up I assume?

***



GJ - Here we see the genius of WELS at work, and I do mean genius in a positive sense. As the Latin Professor observed, WELS is only good at one thing - controlling people.

This is their style - "I will tell you who I am after - only after - you confess exactly how your letter got published on Ichabod [name it not!]."

Rick made a big mistake in being defensive and joining them in making me the villain. But that only makes him guilty by association, even though he had nothing to do with me getting the letter and publishing it.

This crabbing at me helps convict Rick of the crime of criticizing Holy Mother WELS, and that is a crime according to WELS Canon Law. This crime is so heinous that it completely overwhelms murder, adultery, child molestation, homosexuality, and cheering for the Chicago Bears.

That gave Mr. Anonymous room to accuse Rick of accusing a conspiracy. Not exactly subtle, but a true WELS member will fall for it until he is entirely boxed in by the accusations. Guilty as charged.

Many people twist themselves up in making sure they cannot be accused of leaking to me. That also serves the purpose of the abusive cult.

This is what Rick should have done - very simply - publish the letter on his blog (which he did later, if I remember correctly) and let everything hit the fan, as it did anyway.

Then, when they complained about the letter being on Ichabod, which is read all over the world, Rick could have said, "So what? The truth hurts, and it is public anyway. You would not follow the Scriptures, so I followed what Luther wrote in the Large Catechism, about the Eighth Commandment and Matthew 18."

So on WELS Documented, Rick is busy denouncing me for sharing his truth instead of denouncing the criminals - and they are criminals. Glende, Ski, Engelbrecht, Zank, and Mark Schroeder should be removed from the ministry and serve time. But they will not.

The next outcry will be, "Look at what he wrote about our beloved leaders, and he is NOT EVEN WELS!" Note the rubrics - that is the second greatest crime, after confessing Holy Mother WELS is less than perfect. Rick led the way on that one, introducing irrelevant trivia. How does that influence the facts you supplied, oh thou great attorney? Your letter appeared on my blog because stuff gets around, and I do not even know where that copy came from, except you wrote it, just as Corky wrote his "secret" essay on what was wrong with WELS.

The Shrinkers who accuse you now, Rick, are the ones who accused Corky of being "brain damaged" for telling the truth about WELS apostasy. They accused a dead man, who could not answer the charges. And those are the same ones you try to appease by saying "without my permission blah blah blah."


Classic Ichabod - 2011 - Summary of the Influence of UOJ.
Boycott the Emmaus Conference


Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Letter to the UOJ Fanatics in WELS, Missouri, the ...":

WELS, ELS and LCMS Pastor Mark Jeske from the Time of Grace money sponge speaks for the (W)ELS, carrying the UOJ banner high with:

On the other hand, Schuller does have an important message for all public proclaimers of God’s Word. If we are not careful, our law-messages can be presented so forcefully that they stick in hearers’ minds more than our gospel-messages. We don’t want Christians’ dominant phrase of self-description to be “I am a poor, miserable sinner.” The truth is that forgiveness trumps sin, resurrection trumps death, hope trumps fear, and Christ rules. If you believe the Christian gospel, you automatically become an optimist. We can indeed do all things through him who gives us strength.
http://www.timeofgraceblog.org/2010/11/01/crystal-debt/

Jeske is following his Satanic Mentor Leonard Sweet in elevating man and perverting Christianity.

---

Dear UOJ Fanatics,

Many of you complain loudly--behind closed doors and in secret emails--about the disgusting, embarrassing, and anti-Christian antics of your group. I just want to mention that you are just as much at fault as they are, for supporting false doctrine that naturally leads to what they are doing:
  1. Hiding the name Lutheran.
  2. Hiding the sacraments.
  3. Removing the liturgy and Creeds.
  4. Plagiarizing Groeschel's sermons.
  5. Imitating the worst of the Emergent Church fads.
  6. Adulterating the Word to attract more people.
  7. Offering bad music as a replacement for sacred music.
  8. Yardwork clothes worn on the stage, which was once the chancel.
  9. Giving treats, sodas, and coffee to consume during the service.
  10. Mocking worship by dancing in front of the altar in a preaching gown.
  11. Baiting the hook, offering soccer and head-banger music if youth will pretend to engage in Bible study of some type, always imported from false teachers.
  12. Working with ELCA on religious projects.
  13. Raising money from different sects that apparently do not agree on doctrine, although they do agree on false doctrine.
  14. Funding the Salvation Army! (for the babies)
  15. Women's ordination and crypto-women's ordination...women usurping authority, teaching men, and leading worship.

You think they are the bad guys, but they are only carrying out the implications of Universal Objective Justification, which is your only doctrine and their foundational belief.

You are conservative Pietists, you complainers, while they are the liberal Pietists.

This is why. most of you in the fragments and diaspora of the Synodical Conference bow to the strange opinion of Halle professor Georg Christian Knapp. Pietism borrowed this concept from Calvinism, and Knapp wrote it into his lectures. Woods translated the golden sentences which are the core of your doctrine and practice, and that book is still in print.

I will reprint it from the copy I own. This book was already in circulation in English and German before C. F. W. Walther landed in New Orleans. And it is still in print today. UOJ is the doctrine of ELCA and the Universalists.

This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.

Double-justification (UOJ) merges the Atonement with justification by faith, yielding a sterile mulish doctrine for mules to follow. And you do follow it. You talk fellowship, but you ignore it. You talk closed communion and wink at open communion. You condemn ELCA's gaity, but you tolerate your own college (in WELS) promoting a plagiarized gay video. You are so superior to ELCA but you work with them on religious projects and teach the same sterile mulish doctrine.

Mulish is too polite for your pursuit of forgiveness without faith. But let's go over what you love so dearly:
  1. UOJ omits the Means of Grace completely.
  2. UOJ denies original sin, with the bizarre claim that babies are born already justified, without Holy Baptism, already forgiven, without the Word.
  3. UOJ separates the Holy Spirit from the Word, making all of you adherents Enthusiasts, false teachers condemned by the Book of Concord you ignore so famously.
  4. UOJ confuses Atonement and justification by faith, pronouncing it a sin to distinguish between the two.
  5. UOJ lies about its origins, because it cannot be found before Pietism, whether in Luther, the Book of Concord, or the post-Concordists. The honest scholars admit that, but you do not.
  6. UOJ denigrates faith and often describes the order of salvation in terms of decision theology.
  7. UOJ is so derogatory toward faith that its most consistent followers, like Schleiermacher, simply drop faith and teach Universalism.
  8. UOJ uses the terms "all are saved" in many different documents, so the Universalism is already there, though hidden behind the fig-leaf of you gotta believe it.
  9. UOJ is Antinomian, teaching that the Law no longer exists, but you adherents are especially legalistic, making up more rules than the famous rabbis of old - not that the rules ever apply to you.
I know from many communications that your groups are not united in this ridiculous doctrine, perhaps because it was not made "official" until fairly recently - the Brief Statement of 1932 and the Kuske Catechism. Missouri and WELS both taught justification by faith, even though Walther and Pieper were all mixed up about it. The ELS may have true to its Norwegian Pietism and stayed where they started, in Enthusiasm. Your laity see through in the insane contradictions of UOJ, but you clergy do not. You chatter on about it, superficially repeating the talking points drilled into you. You really need to have synod-wide studies of the Book of Concord, setting aside the Roman Catholic doctrine of Holy Mother Church. Your sect is not infallible. Your leaders are not infallible. It's time:
  1. To tremble at the Word of God, instead of the footsteps of the DP.
  2. To make Luther the most copied preacher in Lutherdom - instead of Groeschel.
  3. To apologize to the laity for misleading them, exploiting them, and abusing them.
  4. To rebuke, convert, or excommunicate the false teachers.
---

 
Pr. Greg, Nicely done assertions of how UOJ doctrine is so foul. LPC
 
WWID? (What Would Ichabod Do?): "Indy News Sites Ordered To Give Identifying Information" http://www.theindychannel.com/news/27056084/detail.html
 
(W)ELS and LCMS Pastor Mark Jeske from the Time of Grace money sponge speaks for the (W)ELS, carrying the UOJ banner high with: <i>On the other hand, Schuller does have an important message for all public proclaimers of God’s Word. <b>If we are not careful, our law-messages can be presented so forcefully that they stick in hearers’ minds more than our gospel-messages. We don’t want Christians’ dominant phrase of self-description to be “I am a poor, miserable sinner.”</b> The truth is that forgiveness trumps sin, resurrection trumps death, hope trumps fear, and Christ rules. If you believe the Christian gospel, you automatically become an optimist. We can indeed do all things through him who gives us strength.</i> http://www.timeofgraceblog.org/2010/11/01/crystal-debt/ Jeske is following his Satanic Mentor Leonard Sweet in elevating man and perverting Christianity.

Excommunication - A Rose By Any Other Name Would Still Smell



http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/accessible-worship-how-did-it-start-and.html?showComment=1424821577708

Throughout 2010 and 2011, five pastors and two laymembers of the Northern Wisconsin District met repeated times with the District Presidium concerning the very points that Rick Techlin had brought before them. I was one of those pastors and attended every meeting.

I believe it is disingenuous to say that Rick was removed for being rude. It's true that at many public meetings of St. Peter congregation he asked if the Lutheran Confessions could be emphasized in the pastors' teachings. He did meet numerous times alone with Pastor Glende, and was asked once to appear before the church council. He also did seek the advice of St. Peter's Circuit pastor and the presidium of the Northern Wisconsin District. To say that he didn't make use of the proper protocol made available to him in WELS would show a person's ignorance of this case.

In fact, just two weeks prior to his being declared out of fellowship with St. Peter's congregation, Mr. Techlin was part of a meeting that included the district presidium, all three pastors of St. Peter's/CORE, the pastors and laymen who joined Rick in his concerns, and the circuit pastors of all the pastors involved. The meeting lasted most of the morning. When it finished, it was agreed that all involved would continue talking to one another so that these issues could be solved. Without once asking to speak with him personally as a way to show pastoral concern, Mr. Techlin received the letter from St. Peter congregation declaring him outside their fellowship. Though he was spoken about at a public meeting of the congregation, he was not notified to defend himself. Most importantly, please do not say that Rick was excommunicated. That implies he lives as an impenitent sinner. Never once was he accused of being such by St. Peter congregation.

Those are the facts of this case. Since being declared out of fellowship with St. Peter congregation, Rick has been welcomed by the pastors of a nearby congregation. He does received communion at its altar. The long time veteran pastor of the congregation asked the former president of the NW District to discipline him if he were doing something wrong. He has never been disciplined.

Much has been written about this case. Though considered "closed" by the district and St. Peter congregation, there remain many unanswered questions. Those questions will probably never be answered.

I have spent many hours discussing theology with Rick. He is a very humble man who is deeply concerned with the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. He is not someone who shoots from the hip or opens his mouth without thoroughly thinking about what he will say or do. If respected by and listened to by a WELS pastor, Rick would be a valuable resource for authentic Lutheranism in a congregation.

--

  • Thank you, Pastor Lidtke, for the rest of the story, and for using your name and information to protect Rick Techlin from anonymous and wholly unsubstantiated slander. Very helpful, very brotherly, very pastoral. Thank you. [GJUses false name, thanks Lidtke for using his own, that is so...WELS!]
  • Nobody should say anything bad about Rick or assume he is doing anything but following his conscience. He did exactly what he should have but finally what should the voters have done with a man who continued to call his pastor a false teacher?
    Consider this from the view of St. Peter where there has been no real sin to repent of: A man in your congregation accuses the pastor publicly of sin for mowing his lawn on a Sunday. The congregation talks about it. The man talks about it with his own pastor, the circuit pastor, even representatives from the district. The congregation remains unconvinced their pastor is sinning by mowing his lawn on a Sunday. However, the man continues to very publicly repeat his accusations of public sin. Over and over again. Maybe you would find a different word than “rude” but that is what comes to my mind. Either way the man is not a manifest unbeliever but you also cannot have him continue to publicly accuse his pastor of sin. You do exactly what St. Peter did with Rick, you remove him from membership without excommunication. Maybe he can find a congregation where the pastor doesn’t mow his lawn on a Sunday or who can communicate better with him. Either way he can’t stay and accuse the pastor publicly of sin if the rest of the congregation disagrees with him.
    Consider this from the view of Rick where there has been a real sin to repent of: You bring forward a concern that your pastor is now teaching Calvinism. Your congregation discusses it. You speak to your pastor, your circuit pastor, your district officials and they all believe the teaching of limited atonement is biblical. You continue to witness to the truth but don’t you leave not only your own congregation but also your district because you see them as persistent errorists? Unfortunately and confusingly, this isn’t what Rick did. He stuck around his own congregation and even his own synod even though he seems to have said St. Peters and the district officials are persistent errorists.
    I believe Rick is just following his conscience and God be praised for that.
    However, that doesn’t change the fact that it is simply unacceptable (I will call it rude) to continue to call your pastor to repentance when your entire congregation believes there is no sin. They removed him from membership but did not excommunicate him. The only person who said he was excommunicated was Rick himself. Right now he attends a WELS church which means he supports and lives under the very district who also agreed with the voters of St. Peter that there was no sin. If he truly has a problem with that he is free to witness to the truth he believes in his heart and leave the persistent errorist that is the WELS.
    I think everyone wishes him the best. He just cannot repeatedly, publicly, and loudly call his pastor to repentance when the congregation, circuit, and district has also repeatedly said there was no sin to repent of.
  • I apologize for using the term excommunication. I was unaware of the distinct difference and had previously saw that Rick used that term himself.

    As far as how he was removed, it seems that St. Peter did not hold a special voter's meeting. They in fact announced it as the annual voter's meeting to approve the budget for the next fiscal year. As part of all voter's meetings, a list of membership updates (confirmands, transfers, releases) that were previously approved by the church council is reported and accepted without discussion by the voters. No one has ever come forward to say that this voter's meeting was any different. Was there actual discussion and a special vote regarding Rick or was the letter sent to Rick misleading by reporting that it was a unanimous decision by the 30 or so voters in the room? These are questions that still have not been answered. St. Peter was obviously done discussing his concerns, unwilling to admit any errors, and was at an impasse with Rick. They misled Rick and the other pastors by leaving the impression that some progress was being made. Then they turned around and quickly rubber-stamped his termination of membership right before Easter. Even if all procedures were followed as the district appeals committee reviewed and confirmed, the termination was not done with a spirit of christian love for Rick. Ironically, it brings to mind the very first Holy Week when Pilot washed his hands of the problem for his own benefit. For this the St. Peter council and Pastors owe Rick an apology and should extend their blessing (as the former DP suggested**) that he might become a full member of a neighboring WELS congregation should the council of that church approve (if he is not already and from his blog it doesn't appear that he is in full membership only commune fellowship of the WELS congregation he currently attends).

    **"since the termination of your membership was because you publicly stated that you are not in doctrinal agreement with your pastors, your congregation, the district, and other leaders in the WELS, another WELS pastor would have difficulty allowing you to partake of Holy Communion … at least not without him consulting with your former pastors to get their blessing." -Former District President Engelbrecht.

  • ---

    I was one of the laymen who attended numerous meetings with Rick and several pastors. In my opinion, the meeting with the presidium was not handled in an appropriate way. (Nuf said) The NWD appeal process for Rick was inadequate. (Nuf said) I expressed my displeasure with the way the issue(s) were resolved with a member of the NWD Presidium. I commend the pastors who stuck by Rick and are continuing to support him and, especially, by serving him with the life giving Word and Sacrament. To God be the Glory!

    ***

    What do you call a drinking-on-the-job pastor
    who shows X-rated material to a lady staffer
    and makes obscene remarks to her?
    Answer - "Just the guy we need to close down Round Rock."
    CRM passed, call issued.


    GJ - I enjoy seeing how WELS pastors play with words. In general, excommunication has the broader meaning of being excluded, shunned, and treated as a criminal.

    The account given by Pastor Lidtke certainly attests to that, and Rick Techlin's vivid and well supported accounts prove the same. I have to rush to copy and paste evidence before it is erased, because WELS teaches that erased facts never happened at all. 

    Techlin ultimately received Holy Communion from outside his parish, but that is unusual in an abusive cult where the clergy close ranks once someone has been declared unclean. That does not absolve Ski, Glende, Engelbrecht, and Mark Schroeder of their crimes.

    SP Mark Schroeder stepped in to rescue Ski from the slob's unrepented sins and WELS rewarded Glende by shutting down his first mistake (the Savoy, Illinois coffee bar debacle) and making Tim the key speaker at the upcoming teachers' conference and motivational session. 

    Should we conclude that being alumni of Mark Jeske's New Age business makes Tim and Ski invulnerable to discipline and deaf to sound doctrine?

    I proved the plagiarism of Ski and Glende long before the nascent Intrepid Lutherans got involved. I joined the Craig Groeschel organization and signed an agreement to use Craig's sermons and graphics without charge. That gave me access to all the garbage Ski and Glende were calling their own. Glende even denied his own plagiarism when asked about it by Techlin. 

    Why did a pastor called by St. Peter soon resign and seek another call? No one wanted to address that, so obviously there were questions already.

    Why did Bishop Katie resign from her thankless job of doing Ski's work for him? Later, another Ski staffer resigned, and when she gave reasons, Ski and Glende and two other St. Peterites took her husband to court.

    Think about that - four people sued the lady's husband for telling the truth. The judge dismissed Tim's pathetic case and the others have to give up too, although vindictive and unrepentant Ski wanted his pound of flesh.

    Many people have come to the same conclusions about the rot in WELS. I gather most of my evidence from the Net. These fools have a problem - they have to brag about themselves on the Net, publishing the evidence in their own words for all to see.

    Not only that, whatever is available to me is also there for others to check. I did not have to give anything to the future Intrepids. It was already there. How much good did it do to address the issues? None.

    How soon was the Intrepid Lutherans blog shut down by the cowering, boozey DPs? Pretty fast. But Mark Jeske's money business goes on. The upcoming WELS teacher's conference is simply another Church and Change New Age coven.


    ---
    1. Anonymous - February 24, 2015 at 4:20 PM,

      You say, "Mr. Tichlen [sic] got up at almost every meeting to accuse his pastor of plagiarism. He was unable to convince any of the voters that this charge was actually true but nonetheless he got up every meeting to very vocally make this charge and every meeting convinced not a single voting member. This didn't place him outside the faith, it is just really, really rude... He was removed for being extremely rude."

      That is not true. I never stood up at any church meeting to accuse Pastor Glende of plagiarism. I never discussed those matters in front of the congregation or at a voters' meeting. Ever. My concerns were first made public when they were published without my permission on Ichabod.

      When my letter was made public without my permission, I wrote this on my blog:

      "Unauthorized Publication

      "Recently, a non-WELS blogger published, without my permission, a 29 page letter that I wrote to my pastors and church council last year. However, I gave no one permission to publish my letter, neither did I send my letter to anyone other than those to whom it was addressed.

      "I immediately sent a respectful e-mail to this other blogger asking him to not publish my letter.

      "Without ever having communicated with me, this blogger has also publicly speculated about the synod officials’ response to my letter.

      "This sort of behavior is morally wrong and not to be commended in any way. It is also disorderly. (James 3:17-18).

      "Those who take it upon themselves to publish a year old letter without permission, and who have no information about what has transpired over the last year, behave in an irresponsible manner."

      Here is the link so you can see for yourself:
      https://vdma.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/unauthorized-publication/

      I never attended a voters' meeting after that. A few months later, I was terminated from fellowship.

      I am very curious to hear where you got your false information.

      Your entire comment is false and defamatory. Will you own up to the fact that you do not know what you are talking about? Will you divulge your name? Will you divulge who gave you this false and defamatory information?

      Rick Techlin
    2. ***

    3. GJ - No one wants to be accused of leaking to Ichabod, because that is the ultimate sin.
    4. Attorney Techlin has always been grumpy about my publishing efforts, even giving me orders about how to quote him.
    5. His letter was a masterpiece. The only way to have kept it a secret was to avoid sending it.
    6. In contrast, Engelbrecht skipped a meeting he promised, as I recall, and left behind a letter blaming me for all his troubles in the Fox Valley Circuit. They should have copied and sent that letter to me, to expose the cowardly DP knave. So they replaced Engelbrecht with a younger version - Zank - approved by one Joel Lillo.
    7. Y'all deserve what you get up there. You play by their rules, not the Scriptures, and crab about the results. Good fruit does not come from corrupt trees.
    Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets [Church and Changers], which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [Or grace without the Means of Grace?]
    17 Even so every good tree [faith] bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt [UOJ Church and Changer] tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    21 Not every guru that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    22 Many Church and Changers will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [New Jackson Living KJV]
    The victims of synod flogging join the fun in Icha-flogging.

    Yes, Rick Techlin - Excommunicated by Ski and Glende - Still Does Commune at WELS Parishes - But DOES HE VOTE?
    WELS Is a Ministry of Shunning and Excommunication. Sacraments Adiaphora.

    When one is excommunicated with the approval of the DP in WELS,
    one must appeal to that same DP.
    https://vdma.wordpress.com/








  • Since https://sjbrown58.wordpress.com/ is a WELS blog perhaps you should add it's link to the column on the side. Light for (sic) Light isn't really a WELS blog since unfortunately he is no longer officially a member of a WELS church, though Rick's blog is very worthwhile.
    Reply

    Replies






    1. Great suggestion! Thanks! I just added it.
      -WD1
    2. I don't understand why some people seem to think that the sermon is the only part of the worship service in which "teaching" is going on. The whole worship service should be "teaching" the great doctrines of Christianity. The traditional Common Service and the historic Lutheran hymns do this, and the "instructional worship service" in which the parts of the worship service are explained as the service is taking place is something which I believe that a pastor should consider using at least every few years as well as in all Confirmation and adult instruction classes.
      Finding where hymn tunes come from is an interesting subject for research, but certainly not a standard by which to judge the suitability of the tune. The origins of the "Bridal Chorus" or the "Wedding March" are not a source of concern to most people, for whom the melodies have by traditional use been identified with church weddings.
    3. Mr. Techlin is regularly communed at WELS churches, though (as well he should be) so I think it is fair to leave it as a WELS blog in the same sense that an ELS blog should also be welcome--he is literally in communion.
    4. Yes, but is he a voting member of a WELS congregation?

  • Actually, if you look at the "Church" section on Light of Light, the author is being properly served with Word and Sacrament at area WELS churches. Thankfully, these faithful shepherds recognize the shameful actions against the author in the termination of membership at his former church home.
    Reply
  • As an aside re: Mr. Techlin and his being served the Sacrament by Pastors who are still in fellowship with the Pastors who wrongly terminated his membership, which, of course, puts him still in fellowship with the self-same pastors - To WD1 & WD2 - A good topic for a future post: "The Future of Selective Communion Fellowship in the WELS." Such would be an interesting study.
    Reply

    Replies






    1. That's a great idea, Pastor Spencer! I will start working on that.
      -WD1

  • Has Mr. Techlin made use of the avenues available to him for an appeal? If he has not, isn't it inappropriate for other area WELS pastors to commune him? If he is in the process of appeal, it would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
    Reply

    Replies


    1. How does one learn the facts of this case? I have found one reference online to Mr. Techlin's case in the Ichabod blog.

    1. Yes, he appealed. The appeals board looked at how the excommunication procedure was conducted and stamped the approval on that. However, the appeals board did not look into WHY the excommunication was considered.
      Read Rick's side here: https://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/church-status/
    2. The appeals were exhausted a couple of years ago (note, however, that for laymen there is only one appeal, to the District--laymen are prohibited from appealing to the Synod itself) but the situation is so obviously unjust and unScriptural with respect to Mr. Techlin that a number of other WELS pastors are ignoring the result to commune him.

      There is full documentation of both sides (Mr. Techlin happens to be an attorney by profession, and therefore saved everything that he both sent and received throughout the initial dispute and the appeal) available here, at the selfsame blog mentioned above:

      https://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/church-status/

      Be sure to read all of the additional links under "For further reading:" at the bottom of the post, as the one linked above is merely the latest in a long series.




      1. Don't orthodox Lutherans teach that after conversion the "new person in Christ" is able, albeit imperfectly, to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace, to be guided by the Third Use of the Law? I don't believe that I understand what is in controversy.

        With reference to the charge of plagarism, was a pastor quoting the copyrighted works of someone else and claiming them as his own creation? I certainly am aware of how pastors "recyle" sermons and Bible studies without always giving proper attribution to the author.
      2. [GJ  - Engelbrecht's "Clarion Call" is the DP's scheming, twisted defense of plagiarism.]
      3. Let's clear something up: Mr. Techlin is the only person who has ever declared himself excommunicated. He was removed by the church voters (not the pastor) after he himself declared that his church was in doctrinal error. This is very different than an excommunication which is saying he is spiritually outside the church. A removal just places him physically outside the church. Many churches have important distinctions like this as part of their constitutions for those who aren't in error but generally just annoy people with rudeness or are incapable of functioning within a church constitution. For example, Mr. Tichlen got up at almost every meeting to accuse his pastor of plagiarism. He was unable to convince any of the voters that this charge was actually true but nonetheless he got up every meeting to very vocally make this charge and every meeting convinced not a single voting member. This didn't place him outside the faith, it is just really, really rude.
        Now he is a member of another WELS church. I assume that he no longer believes what he has previously said and behaves more politely. His new church has made no formal charge of false teaching or accusations of plagiarism against St. Peter. He has either changed his mind, is silent about his doctrinal disagreements, or his entire church is silent about their doctrinal disagreements. However, in no way is that the WELS or St. Peter's problem or creates any triangular fellowship or weird communion practices that can be addressed by anyone but Rick. Rick was never declared to be an unbeliever who was excommunicated. He was removed for being extremely rude.
        If Rick truly does believe there are doctrinal issues he ought to speak up and try to convince his new congregation and district that the brothers at St. Peter whom he is still in fellowship with (even if he is no longer allowed at their meetings or in their building) are erring brothers. Otherwise he needs to assume the WELS is a persistent errorist and remove himself from our fellowship.
        But again, let's make this clear: The only accusations of false teaching and excommunication have come from Rick, not from anyone at St. Peters or in the district or in WELS.
      4. Anonymous, 4:20 PM,
        Thank you for your contribution. The Lutheran blogosphere has consistantly heard only one side of this story. This adds a bit of needed perspective.
      5. "Anonymous 4:20"

        He was declared out of fellowship, not just "removed from membership"--you may consider this an excommunication or not, but you should not make light of this at all (Paul Rydecki, too, wasn't excommunicated either, but merely removed from fellowship after all, and we certainly know that name is mud in the WELS). 

        Like Rydecki, Techlin's fellowship was terminated as a "persistent errorist"--see the relevant portions of the St. Peter's constitution and their communication with him here: http://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/terminated-from-wels-fellowship/

        Techlin's DP explicitly said that he was not free to commune at other WELS congregations (letter from Engelbrecht of May 6, 2011), so the congregations which have subsequently done so have done so in (righteous) defiance of the DP.

        "He was removed for being extremely rude."

        It seems clear that any objective reading of the situation would reveal Glende as the rude (abusive, actually) party, but like it or not, there is no provision for removing "extremely rude" people from the fellowship of St. Peter's congregation. The Constitution (and the appeals process, too) make that quite clear.

        I would encourage everyone who is tempted to give any credence to "Anonymous 4:20's" unique take on the events to read Mr. Techlin's extraordinarily well-sourced and documented blog posts.
      6. Doesn't Titus 3:10-11 deal with the "avoiding" of "divisive" people who are not necessarily heterodox?
    1. Warren--the Greek word there is αιρετικον ανθρωπον (hairetikon anthropon). Heretical man.

      This is not just someone you find unpleasant or rude, but someone who has actually chosen to teach contrary to Scripture.

    Throughout 2010 and 2011, five pastors and two laymembers of the Northern Wisconsin District met repeated times with the District Presidium concerning the very points that Rick Techlin had brought before them. I was one of those pastors and attended every meeting.

    I believe it is disingenuous to say that Rick was removed for being rude. It's true that at many public meetings of St. Peter congregation he asked if the Lutheran Confessions could be emphasized in the pastors' teachings. He did meet numerous times alone with Pastor Glende, and was asked once to appear before the church council. He also did seek the advice of St. Peter's Circuit pastor and the presidium of the Northern Wisconsin District. To say that he didn't make use of the proper protocol made available to him in WELS would show a person's ignorance of this case.

    In fact, just two weeks prior to his being declared out of fellowship with St. Peter's congregation, Mr. Techlin was part of a meeting that included the district presidium, all three pastors of St. Peter's/CORE, the pastors and laymen who joined Rick in his concerns, and the circuit pastors of all the pastors involved. The meeting lasted most of the morning. When it finished, it was agreed that all involved would continue talking to one another so that these issues could be solved. Without once asking to speak with him personally as a way to show pastoral concern, Mr. Techlin received the letter from St. Peter congregation declaring him outside their fellowship. Though he was spoken about at a public meeting of the congregation, he was not notified to defend himself. Most importantly, please do not say that Rick was excommunicated. That implies he lives as an impenitent sinner. Never once was he accused of being such by St. Peter congregation.

    Those are the facts of this case. Since being declared out of fellowship with St. Peter congregation, Rick has been welcomed by the pastors of a nearby congregation. He does received communion at its altar. The long time veteran pastor of the congregation asked the former president of the NW District to discipline him if he were doing something wrong. He has never been disciplined.

    Much has been written about this case. Though considered "closed" by the district and St. Peter congregation, there remain many unanswered questions. Those questions will probably never be answered.

    I have spent many hours discussing theology with Rick. He is a very humble man who is deeply concerned with the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. He is not someone who shoots from the hip or opens his mouth without thoroughly thinking about what he will say or do. If respected by and listened to by a WELS pastor, Rick would be a valuable resource for authentic Lutheranism in a congregation.