Mug shot versus Photoshop of Bishop Heather Cook.

"As part of the search process, Bishop Cook fully disclosed the 2010 DUI for which charges were filed resulting in a 'probation before judgment.' After extensive discussion and discernment about the incident, and after further investigation, including extensive background check and psychological investigation, it was determined that this one mistake should not bar her for consideration as a leader," noted the Diocese of Maryland in a statement on Dec. 30, just days after the Dec. 27 crash that claimed Palermo's life.

WELS Seminary Professor James P. Tiefel - Photoshop.

Judge Refuses to Lower $2.5 Million Bail for Heather Cook; Bishop Forced to Remain in Jail

Edgar Codd is the big fish in relational database design.

• Students and all their personal data.
• Classrooms.
• Buildings.
• Calendar

Google offices are googlesque.

1. Labels
2. Titles of posts
3. Graphics 
4. Captions of graphics
5. Biblical citations
6. Names
7. Google Plus
8. Twitter
9. Facebook posting of the URL

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) means moving the post near the top of results in search engines. Each item in the list directly above contributes to that goal. That is why people searching for graphics and topics about Lutherans will find Ichabod so often, and their searches help move up the SEO results.

Going backwards in research is fun, too. When I posted about the nefarious and scrofulous Fox Valley WELS, I always got vicious comments. They came by email, with a time stamp, and I could see who was on the blog with software I installed on the blog.

Taking my cue from the Midway battle in WWII*, I posted a provocative statement about Fox Valley and got an comment with that area glowing red on my map. I checked on the operating system, which also showed on my software. Mac computer - that limited the author to a select few; Mac has a small share of the market, and I knew who used them. (*US intelligence posted a message about the fresh water being broken on Midway, and the Japanese used their code for Midway to relay that information. So it was clear that the US had broken their code wide open.)

Likewise, I received super-nasty comments from Garland, Texas. Who was in Garland? The original guesses were wrong, but it was home for DP-in-Waiting Don Patterson. Did he post when visiting his kin or have someone post for him? The situation was too rich to leave alone, so I voiced my concerns, and the comments disappeared.

"Enjoy our bunnies at The Core's Easter service."

Patterson promotes Easter by promising the kiddies live bunny rabbits to pet. I quoted that from his parish website. The next year, it appeared in a separate website, which I found by search Patterson and live bunnies. (The search for Ski and live bunnies was worse, as I revealed.) After that, the bunny posts disappeared at Easter. Doebler promoted them too, which is why he is the Larry Olson Professor of Evangelism at the portable mini-seminary in Asia.

I used Google to tie these jellyfish together. They try to hide their work for their Father Below, but they cannot help bragging about themselves.

Basic URL for St. Peter in Freedom Glende's first solo parish is insolvent, and the big building project in Freedom is in trouble.

• WELS is liable. So is Mark Schroeder - failure to supervise.
• The Northern Wisconsin District and Deputy Doug are liable.
• St. Peter in Freedom is liable.
• The pastors involved are liable, especially since the staff knew and approved.
• Ski is liable.

Tom Palermo is the man Bishop Cook--DUI, about 12 drinks, and texting--struck and left to die in the street. She hid out in her gated community for 45 minutes, before being forced to return to the scene. I lost two young church members to drunk drivers. They would now be Tom Palermo's age and perhaps have children, too. Drunk drivers - that is very personal for me.

Pastor Calls Bishop Heather Cook's Fatal DUI Incident 'Epic Failure' of Episcopal Church to Hold Her Accountable

"The search committee and standing committee were told 'a candidate has a DUI in their past' and both committees were asked if this would disqualify the candidate. No other details of Heather's arrest were disclosed, such as how long ago it happened (four years ago), what her blood alcohol content was at the time of arrest (the breathalyzer registered .27 — indicating severe intoxication), and the presence of drug paraphernalia and marijuana in the car (a charge which was dropped). This was in keeping with the national guidelines on handling sensitive information in a search process," she noted.

At 250 pounds, she had 12 or more drinks to blow a .27 blood alcohol level in 2010. And she was smoking marijuana. But they hide behind HIPPA laws?

Bishop Heather Cook, mugshot and Photoshop. Suffragen (Assistant) Bishop of the Maryland Diocese.

Bishop Cook is on administrative leave pending Episcopal Church investigation and resolution of criminal charges

Heather Elizabeth Cook was born in Syracuse, NY, the third of six children in a clergy family. When she was 18 months old, the family moved to Maryland when her father was called to serve on Bishop Harry Lee Doll’s staff in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. When he became rector of Old St. Paul’s, Baltimore, they moved downtown into the rectory, a notable witness while Baltimore was undergoing urban renewal. On weekdays, the kids travelled to Brooklandville to attend the St. Paul’s Schools, and her mother taught religious studies at St. Timothy’s School.

The themes of her childhood were this inner city experience, balanced by barefoot summers in the Canadian Thousand Islands, where they had a tiny house; litters of golden retriever puppies; and her father reading the Chronicles of Narnia aloud before bedtime. These shaped her, and remain important to this day.

Cook loved school, and participated in sports and extra-curricular activities enthusiastically. One of the profound learnings of her young life came when she was not elected president of the student council, which she coveted. Instead, she was chosen to edit the yearbook. Looking back, this was part of a consistent life theme: being placed, over and over again, in situations where a dedicated communicator was needed. Whether through public speaking, print, film, or graphic art, opportunities came to convey her passion for deeply held values and beliefs.

Curiosity about the world prompted her to pursue university studies in 1974 at Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada, and later at the University of Exeter, England, and work as an au pair in Spain, on a kibbutz in Israel, and as a grape- picker in France and vegetable-harvester in England.

Back in Baltimore, working as a redactor at Waverly Press, she was re-introduced to faith as a young adult and discerned there was something else calling her. She realized she needed to find her own identity as a young woman, and not wait for it to come through marriage. This, coupled with a spiritual awakening that was encouraged through Education for Ministry classes at Epiphany Church, Timonium, and an introduction to contemplative life through silent retreats, opened the way for her to hear God’s invitation to seminary.

At first she was uncertain about being a priest, having experienced the ups and downs of clergy family life. But she was faithful to this call, and earned a Master of Divinity degree from the General Theological Seminary in New York City in 1987.

On the day she was ordained, at last it felt right. Bishop Theodore Eastman ordained her to the diaconate on June 20, 1987, at the Cathedral Church of the Incarnation, Baltimore, and her father vested her for this office, removing the stole from around his own neck and placing it over hers.

Since ordination to the priesthood on April 30, 1988, she has served as a boarding school chaplain at Stuart Hall in Staunton, Virginia; assistant rector at St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church, Bedford, New York; rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, York, Pennsylvania; canon for mission in the Diocese of Central New York; and canon to the ordinary in the Diocese of Easton on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. These varied ministries taught much and broadened and matured her perspective of the fullness of the Church.

On May 2, 2014, Cook was elected as bishop suffragan for the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. She serves as the first woman bishop in the diocese, succeeding the Right Rev. John L. Rabb who retired in 2010, and the Right Rev. Joe Goodwin Burnett, who served as assistant bishop 2010-2013.

Through the ups and downs of ministry, Cook remains convinced that the Spirit equips Christians with all they need to make the Good News known in our time. “I’m unconvinced by the naysayers who say the day of the Church is over,”Cook said. “I believe a new Church is just beginning, and feel called to help lead in the discovery.”

A statement from the Bishop Suffragan-elect regarding recent events in Ferguson, Missouri

August 20, 2014

Our nation has been gripped by the events in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death by a police officer of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, on August 9. The shooting, and the violence that has ensued, are the inevitable consequences when people regard each other with fear and mistrust, and see only labels that define differences, rather than see the human person made in the image and likeness of God. Sadly, there are far too many of these occurrences in our own country and in the world today. Read the entire statement.

Rev. Donald Patterson has delayed his African hunting trip to teach students how to use synod funds to support the parish budget by calling it "missions."

Evangelism Day

When	Jan 21, 2015 from 08:30 AM to03:00 PM
Add event to calendar	vCal  iCal

Evangelism Day is dedicated to equipping MLC students to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, both in their personal lives and when they serve in the public ministry. The public is invited to attend the opening worship service from 8:30 to 9:15 a.m. in the Chapel of the Christ, or watch it live on MLCTV.

"We lead the people to and fro, in error's maze astounded."

• President Zarling has promised that no one will mention the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace. 
• SP Mark Schroeder has thanked him for his faithfulness to UOJ, Halle University, and Kokomo.
• Paul Calvin Kelm will reveal how one can mine the truths of What Color Is Your Parachute? to jump from one protected synod job to another, without answering to anyone.
• David Valleskey will deny he studied at Fuller Seminary.
• Frosty Bivens will deny that he studied at Fuller Seminary.
• Lawrence Otto Olson will describe how he earned a drive-by DMin at Fuller and never once saw Valleskey or Bivens there.
• All Scripture readings will be from the New NIV, but Parlow will read from The Message.

Yay! WELS dodged another discussion abut the putrid New NIV by blessing all translations and paraphrases.

An Easter sermon condemned by the WELS

Below is the sermon I preached on Easter Sunday, 2012.  This sermon served as part of the “evidence” cited by the district presidium of the Arizona-California district of the WELS that “proved” my “false teaching” of justification by faith alone in Christ, leading to my suspension from the WELS on October 2, 2012.  I was explicitly called upon to repent for the “false” teaching in this sermon by District President Jon Buchholz, First Vice-President Steven Degner, and Second Vice-President David Clark.

Sermon for Easter Sunday (2012)

Brothers and sisters, fellow believers in Christ Jesus: Christ is risen!  He is risen indeed.  Alleluia! Jesus lives!

He really does, you know.  He lives – not in our hearts, not in our dreams or in our imagination.  The real Son of God, with his real flesh and blood, born of the virgin Mary, who truly suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried has really come back to life, stepped out of his tomb, and appeared to his disciples, who were all very surprised and overjoyed to see him alive again.

It really shouldn’t have surprised them quite as much as it did.  He told his disciples how he would be killed and rise on the third day, which was the very same thing that was prophesied about the Christ in the words of King David in Psalm 16 a thousand years before, “I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.  Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to the grave, or let your holy one see corruption.”

As the apostles pointed out to the Jewish crowds later on, King David, who wrote those words of the Psalm, most certainly died and most certainly decayed in his grave.  But the Holy One about whom he was writing, the Son, the offspring of David, the Christ – he was not abandoned to the grave or left in the tomb.  He was raised from the dead.

That’s what the angel announced to the faithful women who went to the tomb that first Easter morning to finish taking care of Jesus’ body, which, they assumed, was already beginning to be corrupted by decay.

How wrong they were!  Instead of the big stone blocking the entrance to the tomb, they saw it rolled away and an angel waiting there to give them the good news.  Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.

Wouldn’t you like to have seen it, too?  The place where they laid him?  The stone rolled away, the empty tomb, the folded linens, the angel sitting where Jesus had been?  Or what if you had seen the empty tomb?  Then what?  Then you would have been just as alarmed, just as terrified as those women were.  Because an empty tomb, all by itself, isn’t good news.

The fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty, the fact that the offspring of David, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, rose from the dead is neither good news nor bad news.  It just is.  It’s a fact.  It happened.  But what does it mean? Is it a fact that saves or is it a fact that damns? The only way to know what it means is to hear what God reveals about it in the preaching of the gospel.

And what does God reveal in the gospel about the offspring of David, Jesus Christ, risen from the dead?

In the words of Psalm 2, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. So those who take refuge in the risen Son of God are blessed! But those who do not seek refuge in him will perish.

According to the gospel, then, the empty tomb of Jesus means that his enemies and all who hate him had better be very afraid.  The resurrection of Jesus is terrible news for the devil and his demons.  It’s terrible news for the one who wants to get to heaven by serving some other god, or by offering God his own merits. It’s also terrible news for all who refuse to repent of their sins. Because if Jesus is dead, then you get to decide what’s right and wrong for your life, and then when you’re dead, you’re dead. That’s it. But if Jesus is alive, then there will also be a resurrection of all the dead and a Judgment Day for all.  So for the impenitent and unbelieving, the empty tomb of Jesus is cause for fear.

But for those who want a sure refuge from God’s wrath, for those who want to be reconciled to God, for those who want Jesus for a Savior, the gospel reveals this truth: that Jesus was delivered up for our sins and raised to life for our justification. His death was sufficient payment for all sin, for every sin, for the worst sinner, for his most bitter enemy; and his resurrection means that all who hope in him, all who trust in him, all who look to him for forgiveness of their sins are absolved before God’s courtroom in heaven.  The empty tomb means the justification of all who believe in the risen One.

And with justification comes every gift and benefit of Christ: the adoption as God’s children, the full acceptance into eternal life, the daily forgiveness of sins in this Christian Church, and the promise of your own empty tomb when Jesus returns, for judgment against all who refused to repent, and with salvation for his believing people.

No, Jesus’ empty tomb all by itself is still a scary thing, and those faithful women who visited Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday remained afraid until, later that day, they saw Jesus for themselves and, more importantly, heard his gospel, his word of peace.  Then they rejoiced with a joy that even the bitterest persecution couldn’t take away.

You have to see Jesus for yourself, too.  But not with your eyes.  Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed, Jesus said.  Believed what?  Believed in the empty tomb?  No.  Believed in God’s promise of forgiveness in Christ.  Believed in his Gospel.  Believed in the word of God the Father who emptied Jesus’ tomb by raising his Son from the dead.  This word from God that he has commissioned me to preach to you today is better than seeing a thousand empty tombs.  Because here in the Word you don’t see the place where Jesus isn’t.  You actually get to see Jesus.  Because here in the Word of God, here in Sacrament of Jesus, the risen Lord Jesus comes to you today with a message intended for you:  “I was delivered up for your sins and raised to life for your justification. Repent and believe in the good news that He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.  And whoever lives and believes in me will never die.”

All week long in our Holy Week services, I’ve been giving you certain things to remember above all else. Today it’s very simple. Today I tell you, as I told our confirmand last Sunday, in the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel.

Let his enemies remember and repent!  Let his people remember and rejoice! Amen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, here is the written critique of a portion of this sermon by DP Jon Buchholz.  (There was also a verbal condemnation of it by all three members of the district presidium.)

Pastor Rydecki’s teaching is subtle and deceptive. In many cases it is found not in what he overtly says, but it is hiding behind what he refuses to say or in the ways he limits or qualifies the gospel. The following notes were drawn from Pastor Rydecki’s writings and sermons and compiled by Pastor Degner of our district. The highlighting is his:

 Paul Rydecki:  Adding Faith to the Proclamation of Forgiveness

Compiled by Steven Degner to show how the incorrect teaching on justification by faith permeates the preaching and teaching of Paul Rydecki:

Easter Sermon

But for those who want a sure refuge from God’s wrath, for those who want to be reconciled to God, for those who want Jesus for a Savior, the gospel reveals this truth: that Jesus was delivered up for our sins and raised to life for our justification. His death was sufficient payment for all sin, for every sin, for the worst sinner, for his most bitter enemy; and his resurrection means that all who hope in him, all who trust in him, all who look to him for forgiveness of their sins are absolved before God’s courtroom in heaven. The empty tomb means the justification of all who believe in the risen One.

Here, Pastor Rydecki limits the work of Christ only to those who believe. He refuses to acknowledge that the empty tomb was for the justification of all people.

The honest reader of the above sermon will easily see that I did not “limit the work of Christ only to those who believe,” but that I limited the application of the benefit of the work of Christ only to those who believe, as the Scriptures also do.  In other words, Christ died for all (that is “His work”) and wants all to be justified through faith in Him and His work.  But not all are justified, because not all believe in Him and His work.

In their verbal critique of this sermon, I was informed by the district presidium that I had preached a “conditional Gospel” by mentioning faith.  According to them, the true preaching of the Gospel should not mention “believing” or “faith” at all.  One is simply supposed to preach that God justified all people on the first Easter Sunday.

While I do not boast of any homiletical genius in this sermon whatsoever, I am prepared to stand with its doctrinal, Law and Gospel content before the judgment seat of Christ.  It is His teaching, not mine.  Those who condemn it, condemn the Gospel.

The reason I bring this up now, several months after the fact, is not out of any sort of anger.  Yesterday we had one of the most joyful Easter celebrations I’ve ever experienced, and the Lord is faithfully preserving our congregation and prospering the Gospel among us. The reason I bring this up now, is twofold.  I truly pray for the repentance of the WELS leadership that has condemned the Gospel, so that they may stop persecuting Christ, and repent of their wickedness, and turn and be healed by Him.   I also pray that all WELS pastors may wake up from their slumber and recognize that the Gospel itself is at stake, and if they remain willfully ignorant or fearfully silent, they themselves will lose the Gospel.  Since the WELS leadership refuses to have an honest study of this doctrinal issue, it behooves every WELS pastor to search the Scriptures for himself and study them and the Lutheran Confessions tirelessly, to study and pray until he is able to stand on the truth, without being blown about by every wind of doctrine.  Then it behooves each one to instruct his congregation until they either confess the truth together, or are split apart by the truth.  The current ambivalence with regard to doctrine is ungodly.

Secondly, I want the faithful members of WELS congregations to understand what their synod has become, so that they may take a stand for the truth.  The synod is a mixture of truth and error.  It is a fellowship in which some confess, according to the Scriptures, that God justifies sinners only through faith in Christ, while others rage that God has justified all unbelievers as well, and praise themselves for their “unconditional (and unscriptural) gospel” and persecute those who preach the very words of Jesus and of His Apostles (and also of Luther).  Some in the WELS openly condemn the above Easter sermon as heretical; others are greatly comforted by it and would stake their eternal future on the truth it proclaims.  That is no longer an honest fellowship or the form of a Christian communion.  What fellowship does light have with darkness?

Martin Stephan, STD; CFW Walther, F. Pieper, Jay Webber, Jon Buchholz, David Valleskey

Martin Stephan, STD; CFW Walther, F. Pieper, Jay Webber, Jon Buchholz, David Valleskey

I got this from Dr. Robert Preus' last book. This is the Biblical, Confessional, Lutheran position. ELCA, WELS, LCMS, CLC (sic), Little Sect on the Prairie - all reject justification by faith.

• We do not need to go much farther than to see that the proponents of Universal Objective Justification have turned the above concept upside-down and inside-out. They are by definition liars, like those who would call cyanide "food" and apples "poison." 
• This Emmaus Conference is no attempt to deal with issues or clarify matters, because the speakers only want to enforce their crude propaganda. Therefore, only one side--UOJ-- will be presented. Based on previous experience, they will not even allow someone to dissent from their malignant dogma.
• Jay Webber and Jon Buchholz have never shown a capacity for study beyond earning their precious MDiv degrees. Neither one has contributed a micron to Lutheran doctrinal work. Buchholz has only dug himself deeper with his commitment to universal salvation.
• Their position never found a home in the Lutheran Church until the era of Pietism, when the spirit of rationalistic Calvinism took hold at Halle University. 
• All their prime sources are from Pietism and some (not all) of the Synodical Conference leaders, who were reared in Pietism. 
• CFW Walther only knew rationalistic training at Leipzig University or Pietism (his Bible study group, Halle style, his following of Kuhn, and his devotion to Martin Stephan, the adulterous and syphilitic leader of the Saxon Migration.) They brought cell groups to America.
• UOJ was not universally affirmed in the Synodical Conference, as shown by the original Gausewitz Catechism.
• UOJ was not taught everywhere in WELS. Papenfuss, of UOJ Kokomo fame, never heard of UOJ until seminary. Many old-timers, even Boomers, know that UOJ was not taught in WELS in their congregation - only justification by faith.
• UOJ was not taught in all places in the Missouri Synod, and it is certainly not now. One pastor told me he knew about 500 who did not bow the knee to this crackpot idea.
• Eduard Preuss is hailed as the justification genius, by Cascione and McCain quoting Robert Preus, but Robert Preus abandoned that position and put together excellent anti-UOJ quotations in Justification and Rome.
• Luther - UOJ expert? Really?

[1] Luther states, “And unless you are part of the company of those who say “our sins,” that is, who have this doctrine of faith and who teach, hear, learn, love, and believe it, there is no salvation.” Luther’s Works: Vol. 26, page 35. See also Lohse, Martin Luther's Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, page 259 where Lohse writes, “Such concentration on one particular article as we find in Luther is without precedent.”
[2] Weimar Ausgabe, 39, I, 205, Promotionsdisputation von Paladins und Tüemann, June 1,
1537. qtd in “Justification and Eschatology in Luther's Thought” by George Wolfgang Forell.
[3]Triglot Concordia: The Symbolic Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English, The Smalcald Articles 2.1.5

---

Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord and an expert on justification. He spanked Huber - the first promoter of UOJ in Lutherdom. And they kicked him out.

Luther, from his Galatians commentary:

Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by wealth.

VERSE 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37.)

Rambach was 100% Pietist, 100% UOJ.

Luther, from What Luther Says:

John teaches mainly the sublime and chief article of our Christian faith: believing in Christ. Because of this article we are called Christians. Besides this, we do not find many sermons on the Ten Commandments in this Gospel. Rather it is his greatest task to establish well the sublime article of the righteousness of faith and to impress it deeply on the people. For there is no danger when this article remains pure and unadulterated and stands firmly. But when it is overthrown, we are lost and are no better than Jews, heathen, Tartars, and Turks, aye, we are as bad as the papists. For this reason, because he so diligently teaches this chief article, the evangelist John deserves to be highly praised.
What Luther Says, ed. Plass, 3 vols, II, p. 702. W 33, 82. E 57, 298. SL 7, 2252.

Looking for UOJ here. Oops.

Trying hard to find a UOJ quotation among the Lutherans, before Pietism. Coming up dry, Jon and Jay.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Among the Hidden: The fear of speaking out against the WELS

Why the fear to speak publicly against the WELS?

Why do so many people, pastors included, feel that when they have concerns about the Synod they must speak anonymously? What happens if those concerns are expressed? Is there a safe manner for both concerned pastors and laypeople to express those thoughts where they don't have to do it anonymously? What can the Synod do to assist people and help them feel like they are able to speak openly and not anonymously? Obviously many feel like they can't.

*****

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: The purpose of this post, and the cases cited, is to examine and discuss WHY so many people, who have concerns about the synod, don't speak up as themselves but instead feel the need to remain anonymous. It is also to examine if there are only specific subjects (i.e. contemporary worship, doctrinal issues, etc.) that make people feel vulnerable or if it is "across the board" with everything. The cases cited below are for discussion to see if these very public cases, and their results, are what is holding people back - because of what they have seen happen to others.

For all the "anonymous and hidden" people out there, please comment with why you feel the need to either blog, write, or comment anonymously. What do you fear will happen if you speak openly?

Likewise, if you are one that HAS spoken up about concerns in the Synod, and had positive results, please share the general topic and how you broached the subject with the Synod.

For those on the other side of the fence, that spoke up using your real identity and it lead to negative repercussions, what were they? What would you do differently (if anything)?

And finally, what specifically can the synod - synod president, district presidents, circuit pastors - do to reduce all the anonymous writing, comments and concerns?

Another embezzler, dearly loved by WELS UOJ/CGM leaders.

---

*****

The Polluted WELS Blog was written by an anonymous author (Matthias Flach) and when he accidentally gave away too many details about his identity, he deleted his page for fear of retribution. Since most of it has been deleted, it's difficult to link to anything for verifiable documentation therefore, Matthias, if you are reading this, we would love to have your input on why published and what lead you to delete, etc so we can learn from your experience.

Comment that wasn't deleted:
"...Two of the DP who are supposed to be the most Confessional are preaching at this conference. If I dared to voice my concerns, I would automatically labeled "divisive" and blackballed. Anonymous blogging is the only recourse Confessional Lutheran pastors have."

***** 

The Bailing Water Blog examined issues in the WELS from 2007 - 2011. If the author of Bailing Water is reading this, we would welcome your input on why you began the blog, what you were able to accomplish, and why you stopped.

*****

The Intrepid Lutheran Blog also started strong and the people involved were NOT anonymous. Did that lead to negative repercussions for any of them? We ask because this was posted in their 2013 blog post, The Witch Hunt Has (Officially) Begun: "...The following paragraph is from WELS District President Doug Engelbrecht’s summary of the recent meeting of the WELS Conference of Presidents, sent out to the pastors of his district: Another item involved the Intrepid Lutheran website.  There is a concern that those who still wholeheartedly support this group by being “signers” are also supporting a pastor who has been removed from the ministerium of the WELS for doctrinal reasons, because he has been given a forum on their website.  The consensus was that each district president should approach pastors in their district who are listed as “signers” on the website and determine whether or not they are in support of the false doctrine that the suspended pastor espouses..."

Because the Intrepid Blog is so big and involves so many issues and people, we would welcome input from any of the originals "signers" on how you felt then and how you feel now about voicing public concerns. Do you have any regrets? Would you encourage others to be like you and come forward as themselves publicly to express concerns? What advice do you have to give looking back in hindsight now?

*****

---

---

The following three case are well known public cases which are often cited as reasons for why people feel the need to be anonymous. The parties in all these cases chose to make them public. We did not dig these out of a closet somewhere. All of them have substantial referenced reading material online if you would like to study each one in more in-depth. We would welcome first-hand feedback from all the parties below (both sides) to further elaborate on the obstacles you faced - both positive and negative. We would also be interested in hearing, now that you know the outcome, if you have any advice for others who may also be in the same situation? 

Case 1: Pastor Paul Rydecki
Issue: Spoke up about doctrinal concerns in the Synod
Outcome: It is with great personal distress that we inform you, earlier this week Rev. Paul Rydecki was suspended from WELS on the charge of teaching the “false doctrine” of Justification by Faith Alone. This drama has been drawn out over the past few months.
Reading Material: 

• Intrepid to the Last: Rev. Paul Rydecki has been Suspended from WELS
• Suspended from the WELS - Why?
• Why WELS Expelled Rev Paul Rydecki
• Arizona-California District Report

---

---

Case 2: Layperson Rick Techlin
Issue: Concerned about doctrinal issues and plagiarism in his WELS church
Outcome: Had his membership terminated from his lifelong church
Reading Material: 

• Intrepid - Why I No Longer Attend My [WELS] Church (22 Comments)
• Light from Light - Why I No Longer Attend My Church
• Receiving Holy Communion in the WELS
• Terminated from WELS Fellowship
• An Appleton Update
• November 1, 2009 Letter
• January 20, 2011 Letter
• April 12, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church
• April 30, 2011 appeal letter

note: all the letters were linked from public websites; they were not obtained by private means.

---

---

Case 3: Layperson had a restraining order filed on him by two WELS pastors
Issue: JD was standing up for his wife's reputation after she was sexually harassed by a pastor. That WELS pastor, as well as, a second WELS pastor filed a restraining order against him and took him to court.
Outcome: Case was dismissed.
Reading Material: 

• Two WELS Pastors and Four Meritless Lawsuits
• WCCA vs. WELS Privacy Concerns
• Meritless Lawsuits and Spiritual Abuse

They are scared out their minds about the same thing, so they destroy the evidence.

St. Paul-Minneapolis Catholic Archdiocese files for bankruptcy

Here's to Liebig, who should be a WELS hero, because he was dead wrong and spawned the chemical fertilizer industry anyway.

1. Pastor SpencerJanuary 16, 2015 at 3:22 PM

   First off - in response to Jeff's comment, and can certainly sympathize with his observation. However, there is a better solution than going the anonymous route, and that is simply to say ahead of time that you don't wish to engage in a drawn out discussion, for the reasons you sited (sic), but are simply expressing your view for the moment. If and when contacted, you can just say that you'll continue the discussion at another time when you have the time.
   
   Now, as for consequences to speaking out. I think you will find that you're going to get very few actual cases of negative repercussions, because as far as I know there are very few "documented" cases that could be sited (sic!). Those on your list are not all because of "speaking out." For example, whether one agrees with Pastor Rydecki's take on justification or not, it should be stated that his suspension was specifically based on that issue and not simply for speaking out as an Intrepid Lutheran. And as far as IL goes, the main reason it went by the wayside is because of that same issue. People were being suspected of agreeing with him, whether they did or not, just by their association with IL. Now, that was not fair, but it was what it was, and was not due to just speaking out. The Techlin matter, and that involving the former CORE secretary and her husband, it seems to me, do indeed fit your description pretty well, but again, how many more like those could actually be documented. A few, no doubt, but not a ton, again, as far as I know. I await enlightenment.
   
   My point is simply this: Yes, people post anonymous comments out of fear of repercussions, but that's all it really is, FEAR of repercussions. And yes, there are a few cases where such fears were indeed justified, but far fewer than people think. The bottom line is - if many, many more people would speak up and speak out and be willing to be identified, they could not all possibly be attacked or silenced. The sheer numbers would make such a reaction by whomever impossible. OK, a few of those in the front of the "wave" might have to take it in the shorts, but like dead bodies on top of barbed wire, they would make it easier for their comrades behind them to push through the offensive to success. "Once more unto the breech, until we fill the gap with our English dead . . . !" continued . . .

   Reply
2. Pastor SpencerJanuary 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM

   So, the reason the WELS or any synod goes haywire, is not just because of the leaders, or the heretics, or such, but because there were not enough courageous people to "fill the gap;" indeed, because far too many had all kinds of bravery behind the label of anonymous, but not enough to charge by name when the bugle sounded. So, again I say to all those anonymous criers complaining about their dear synod going in directions they don't want it to go - YOU have the power to stop it. YOU have the ability to turn it around. YOU are responsible - nobody else - just you. So, speak up or be quite, but please no more anonymous drivel. Enough already!
   
   For myself, I have been "speaking out" since my very first WELS conference as an 18-year-old lay delegate, and throughout college, seminary, and my entire ministry. Have I been called names - sure. Have I been told to shut-up - yeah. Have I been threatened with "black-balling" - yep. But the Calls kept coming, and my ministry continued. Has it been unpleasant at times - absolutely! Has it been lonely quite often - very much! Has it cost me personally and professionally - no question. But, so what?! I'm still here. Still kicking. What would I do different? Oh my, there are not enough words in the world to go into all that! But would I take the anonymous route - no way, and still be true to myself, my heritage, and my faith.
   
   I'll watching with great interest to see if I'm wrong, and so to read about the hundreds and hundreds of examples over the years where those who have spoken out have suffered terrible consequences. Perhaps I just haven't been paying close enough attention.
   
   Of course, on the other hand, if such examples don't show up, I would expect people - including the moderators of this site - to drop the anonymous nonsense and come out into the open.
   
   It will be nice to have some more company for a change! Welcome to the fight!
   
   Deo Vindice!
   
   Reverend Father Steven D. Spencer
   Trinity Orthodox Lutheran Church
   Sierra Vista, AZ 
3. ***
4. GJ - Mark Schroeder's classmate and spin-doctor has done it again. Missing is the account of Intrepid Lutherans being targeted by district death-squads, to cease having their names on the blog. And that worked. The pastors and most laity jumped ship too - including the founder, Steve Spencer hisself. The latest post - from a layman - is from Thanksgiving.
5. Ecclesia Augustana stopped publishing new articles over a year ago.
6. Bailing Water had three editors, all forced to stop. 
7. Spencer should remember Issues in WELS. DP Free, who called Spencer "a cancer that should be removed" reversed himself and urged Steve to promote the conferences. That was under SP Gurgle, who despised the group. Soon it was disbanded and all the posts erased.
9. The only group to have thrived and grown is Church and Change, which runs the whole synod. Instead of being punished for their false doctrine, they are rewarded and protected. They can abuse members and be absolved. They can drink on the job, fake promise to dry out, and still find a safe harbor.

1. I could list a few dozen experiences, each one exposing the false doctrine and abusive nature of WELS.
2. People contact me about severe abuse in WELS and the ELS. I know many stories that cannot be hinted at. People trust someone who keeps confidences instead of feeding names to the DP and SP.
3. WELS should be happy there are any laity left to fund their extravagances, upper level salaries, and pay-offs to avoid courtroom appearances.
4. Whatever you do folks, pastors or laity, do not contact any WELS clergy. Go to an attorney recommended by the bar association and start there. Let that person be the sole contact.

5. The president of DMLC defended a murderer in court. WELS covered up for a second murderer and had no problem with his serving a new congregation.

   
   
6. Typical WELS Pastor - Hiding Behind "Anonymous"
7. AnonymousJanuary 16, 2015 at 3:48 PM
   I will make a comment similar to one I made on a previous blog. In my years in ministry, I have never been shy about speaking up in circuit meetings, and conferences, and conventions. I have made personal phone calls and sent personal emails. I have spoken up on many occasions, to the point that I'm sure some wished I would shut up. Obviously, none of those were done anonymously. But as Pastor Spencer has said, I've never faced any real negative consequences. I have regularly received calls, and have served in conference, district, and Synod capacities.
   
   But when commenting on some of these issues online, for the time being, I prefer to remain anonymous. One main reasons is that I do not want the required proctological exam from Ichabod, picking through everything I've ever written (much of which is still available online), looking for whatever quotes he can pull out of context, digging up whatever dirt he can find, in an attempt to smear me. While I don't feel I have anything to hide, I just don't want his fingers there. So in these types of public blogs, most of the time, I prefer the blanket of anonymity. 
8. GJ - So much to unravel here. I keep seeing a scatological obsession among the WELS clergy. I imagine many of them were potty-trained at gunpoint.
9. They would like to say anything and yet not be known for their words. There are no actual circumstances described in this parson's heroic attacks on the synod. He was careful to note all his honorific positions, in spite of his Don Quixote personality.
10. I am glad he wrote, because he illustrates how the Circuit Pastors, District Presidents, and Synod President work. They hide behind a cloak of anonymity and feed false accusations to the gullible. The best liars work their way to the top and winter in the Caribbean.
11. The prime example is the WELS Grapevine, a way of poisoning the well - or WELS - anonymously.
12. Why did a former seminary president oppose the merger of Northwestern College and DMLC? Answer - He was senile. Yes, I heard it on the Grapevine.
13. Why did Corky K. write against Church Growth and the merger? Answer - He was brain-damaged. I heard that on the Grapevine too.
14. There is another grapevine where believers abide and bear fruit, but many WELS pastors know nothing about it. They have never taken John 15:1-10 seriously.
15. 
    

• Bryan Lidtke Hey now, you know there's an outlet: Write a letter! The solution to all your problems!

  7 hrs · Like · 2
• Seth Bode Burden of proof is on the writer for saying it happens *so many* times. First & last sentence of the first paragraph. *Some* seems like it would be more accurate. Therein lies the problem with non-documentation. The court case is really weird and needs to be addressed.

  7 hrs · Like
• Bryan Lidtke Well, the court case is a closed case for the district, isn't it? It was simply botched by the district and, sadly, I don't see much changing.

  7 hrs · Like · 2
• David Endorf I think the issue I have with the post is that it seems to ignore the fact that sometimes people stay anonymous because they have a sinful nature. They may be to lazy to handle things the right way, they may be too immature. There's all sorts of reasons. Ultimately though as God lays things out in Matthew 18 there is no room for being anonymous. If people don't trust God's word or know it enough to follow his plan for church discipline then I have a very hard time listening to their complaints. I'm not saying the WELS is perfect it isn't, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. I have had several complaints with things that have gone on over the years, and I've never had any problem talking with the pastor involved, my circuit pastor or the DP.

  7 hrs · Like · 2
• Joe Jewell David Endorf it's only fair to point out that the "synod protectors and enforcers" operate anonymously, too, or more often completely behind-the-back.
  
  I posted--using my own real name, as usual--a comment on a Lutheran blog site, which has since disappeared, and immediately an (anonymous, of course) poster popped up saying "I will fight against those who are wolves in sheep clothing within my Michigan District" and he was going to "email my pastor, circuit pastor, and DP that I was posting on such a blog.... Both will receive the information with screenshots where you so willingly embrace this terrible sin and also how you have been publicly warned". 
  
  And all this for a SINGLE fairly innocuous comment, where I said, essentially, that I thought open discussion was a good thing without actively taking a side in the dispute in question (except that I guess in the WELS, being for any kind of open discussion is controversial in and of itself, as we've seen). He then had the gall to demand the name of my pastor--which I freely gave; turn the other cheek, right?--and then replied "Joe, I am surprised you aren’t going to [redacted name of church] since that is closer to your home but I just went ahead and e-mailed all four of them anyway." WHAT?!
  
  So this completely anonymous "synod defender" type guy had actually bothered to look into my personal information enough to find my address (a recent move, mind you--I'm not in the phone book) and figure out which area WELS church I'm closest to, confirming that I attended the other one--and it's only a difference of a little bit, so yes, he took care to find the exact location. I'm not going to lie, I made extra sure my doors were locked every night for weeks.
  
  And I'm just a layman with a non-church job. Does anyone think that kind of a guy wouldn't hesitate to--completely anonymously--engage in that level of harassment-via-colleagues or make an attempt to take away the man's livelihood, in the case of a called worker? One of the reasons that I am outspoken is because I have that luxury as one who does not depend upon the synod for my family's continued earthly security. I wish more pastors and teachers were outspoken, too, but I recognize that they are much, MUCH more constrained.

  6 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
• Franz Frankfurter I've told this story before, but I'll share it here. There were some very vocal members of my congregation who were pushing hard for contemporary worship. I explained my concerns to them and talked about the blessings of the liturgy and told them that we wouldn't be starting contemporary services. About a month later, my DP sits me down at a circuit meeting and tells me, "I've been contacted about you. Perhaps you should start thinking about other employment options." If I'm not free to voice my concerns about contemporary worship in my own congregation, does anybody really think I'm free to voice my concerns about the direction of the synod in general?

  5 hrs · Like · 4
• Rik Krahn I am in no way discounting Pastor Frankfurter's experience. Something like that shouldn't happen. But I still believe that type of experience is out of the ordinary. I have had that very conversation with those same members at my 3 different churches, and had never had such a "talking to" from either my circuit pastor or District President. Again, I'm not saying that it never happens, but I don't believe it happens frequently.

  5 hrs · Like
• Joe Jewell I think it probably depends strongly upon 1) who you are; 2) who your DP/CP is; and 3) who the complaining member is (and who they are related to).

  4 hrs · Edited · Like · 5
• Seth Bode It just seems to me that anonymity greatly decreases the reliability & value of what you express. By the way, can we just understand that everything I say on here is anonymous?

  4 hrs · Like
• Joe Jewell Speaking precisely, anonymity doesn't inherently decrease the reliability and value of what is spoken in any kind of absolute sense; it just broadens the uncertainty with which one can make that assessment. After all, anonymous information could be (and sometimes is) absolutely spot-on--there are just fewer ways of ascertaining those qualities if you don't know who it's coming from.
  
  Personally, the calculation (estimation, really) that I make depends upon the situation of the anonymous person, as nearly as that can be ascertained, as well as how well the anonymous information accords with other, publicly (or privately to me, at least) confirmable information. An anonymous account from a person who has good reason to remain anonymous (say, that the information they are expressing is something that the powers-that-be would rather is not expressed or made public) that doesn't contradict confirmable information--I'm likely to look favorably upon that in terms of the probable quality of the information.
  
  A name is no guarantee of the quality of an expression, either. I've been lied to or misled by plenty of non-anonymous people.

  4 hrs · Like · 1
• Franz Frankfurter Seth Bode, of course my anonymity decreases my reliability and value. But what other option do I have? My anonymity increases my odds of feeding my family. Frankly, that's more important to me than convincing you I'm telling the truth. Besides, if I gave you my name, are you really going to believe me and side with me over a DP?

  4 hrs · Like
• Thomas Schmeling Joe Jewell - the 'sin' was posting on a blog?

  3 hrs · Like · 1
• Thomas Schmeling I have yet to get through the links on the article. Something that troubled me greatly was right out in the open. 
  
  "Rev. Paul Rydecki was suspended from WELS on the charge of teaching the “false doctrine” of Justification by Faith Alone."
  
  Clearly I am missing some context but is that the heart of this matter? Does our synod now deny Sola Fide?

  2 hrs · Like
• Shanna White that's a bit misleading, Rev. Rydecki was disagreeing with UOJ (universal objective justification). The debate gets theologically deep (for me) pretty quickly, but I believe it was more a UOJ issue then a Sola Fide issue.

  2 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
• Joe Jewell Thomas Schmeling: yes.

  2 hrs · Like
• Thomas Schmeling On the issue of anonymity, I prefer my real name for many reasons. One reason is because it makes me think before I hit that Enter key. 
  The most relevant to this discussion is Matt 10:32. Right after he says "Fear not" Christ says,
  
  32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. (NKJV)
  
  For me specifically, hiding my name, even while confessing Christ publicly, would be an act of unbelief.

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• Joe Jewell Thomas Schmeling, here is the post (ironic in its content!) that earned me such opprobrium and accusations from the anonymous, self-appointed Guardian of the Michigan District's Internet Blog Honor:
  
  "Welcome back. I wanted to post with my name to tell you that I admire your decision to keep blogging. Whoever you are, you and your family are in my prayers--as is your bully, that he might repent and stop the harassment and threats."

Emmaus Conference I - Jesus taught the disciples to believe in Him. Where did He say they born "born forgiven"?

1. Jesus taught justification by faith in Him. That is clear throughout the Gospels, but especially in the Fourth Gospel, written by the disciple Jesus loved. "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31
2. The Gospel clearly distinguishes between believers and unbelievers. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
3. Paul devoted Romans 4 to comparing Abraham being justified by faith to our status before God. "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."Romans 4:24
4. Chapter 4 of Romans climaxes with Romans 5:1-2. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
5. Justification only means "justification by faith" in the New Testament. Even the UOJ Stormtroopers concede that.
6. If the Bible teaches justification without faith anywhere, as the UOJ Enthusiasts hope and pray, then the Bible contradicts itself hundreds if not thousands of times.
7. If the Scriptures ever teach justification without faith, there are two justifications and not one, which is absurd.
8. If a single soul is justified without the Word, without the Means of Grace, the Holy Spirit is as volatile and capricious as the Calvinists imagine.
9. Luther never taught UOJ, but taught justification by faith as the Chief Article of Christianity.
10. Melanchthon wrote simple and yet elegant statements about justification by faith.
11. Martin Chemnitz studied under Luther and Melanchthon. He also taught justification by faith, serving as senior editor of the Book of Concord and the Formula of Concord.
12. Polycarp Leyser, an editor of the Book of Concord, led the attack against Samuel Huber, a Wittenberg theologian (former Calvinist - note) who began raving against justification by faith. And yet the UOJists disavow Huber, citing CFW Walther as their authority! That settles it for the Walther-worship gang.
13. J. Gerhard, who completed Chemnitz'Harmony of the Gospels, clearly taught justification by faith. Gerhard was a genius known for his timeless defense of the Christian faith, against the Roman Catholics and Calvinists.
14. Quenstedt unhinged UOJ in one clear statement, quoted by Robert Preus.
15. Calov, often claimed--without proof--by the UOJ Enthusiasts, defined justification by faith clearly, removing any wiggle room for the errorists of his day and ours.
16. Gausewitz was trusted to be the Synodical Conference president, and he produced a catechism that taught justification by faith. The SynCons have thrown him under the bus, forgotten him, and given his old parish to an idiot who went to Fuller Seminary and mocks the efficacy of the Word.
17. Dr. Robert Preus did teach UOJ in 1987 and quoted Edward Preuss with approval, but his last book--badly edited by two of his sons--argued against UOJ, citing such orthodox theologians as Quenstedt (one of his favorites) and Calov.

The UOJists are such bold liars that they claim their dogma is the Chief Article!

Robert Preus loved Quenstedt's precise language. He told one audience he wanted to name a son Quenstedt. SHOW ME THE UOJ!

Unlike the typical seminary professor, Robert Preus continued to study and grow, finally getting past his Norwegian Pietism and teaching the truth about justification by faith. He supported the Church Growth Movement too, earlier; does anyone want to claim that in the name of Robert Preus? Hmmm?