Quantcast
Channel: Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11615

WELS Discussion - The Call and Its Abuse by the District Popes in WELS

$
0
0
Both of these pastors, joined by two church staffers, sued a man for telling the truth about Ski.
Glende was also involved in the charges of sexual harrassment.
They posed for this gluttony photo when studying under the abusive Mark Driscoll.
Does this sound like Walther studying under Bishop Stephany, STD?



As Beckie pointed out, this CRM related issue isn't necessarily the cause of the new call reporting mechanism. Here's a well-documented summary if you haven't heard: https://vdma.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/two-wels-pastors-and-four-meritless-lawsuits/
Thoughts?

Recently, two WELS Pastors, Tim Glende and James Skorzewski, and two of their staff members filed four almost identical lawsuits against a WELS layman, Jonathan Donnan, a former member of their con...
VDMA.WORDPRESS.COM
LikeLike ·  · 
  • Jeffery Clark and 2 others like this.
  • Melissa Brander Unfortunately not surprised it was handled like this. Our culture does not take sexual harassment allegations seriously and the victim is often blamed or shamed and it is seen as "not that bad" or the woman is told she is "overreacting." Too often it is swept under the rug and not taken seriously in Christian church bodies, not just the WELS but I keep up with other church bodies/Christian organizations and two of them within the past year have had scandals where the leaders were accused of inappropriate actions towards women, varying in degrees of severity, but yet people still stand behind them and say they are still "good people." This is not something that is taken as seriously as it should be. Moving him to a different congregation in a different part of the country does not fix the problem and is a large part of why the Catholic Church has had issues because they too often just moved priests who were accused of pedophilia to a different parish instead of handling the issue. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of behavior in a pastor.
    2 hrs · Like · 5
  • Sherrie Rardin I would have a very hard time trusting any of the people involved in this action. We are taught the first step in obtaining forgiveness is to admit the sin. Seems to me that this was never really done. In something of this nature by someone of this status, that admission should have been to the direct people involved, his entire congregation from the pulpit and his fellow pastors as well as his own family, if applicable. Then, and only then, should he expect the victim and her husband to be able to let it go and move on.
    2 hrs · Like · 5
  • Nick Brander Having been through a negative situation with a previous pastor of the WELS, I don't believe it is our job to have thoughts on this at all. I believe this should have stayed within the affected people, the church leadership and the district leadership. Let me stress that we do not know the full story and we cannot know the full story. For us to form any thoughts would be counter-intuitive and serve no beneficial purpose.
    2 hrs · Like
  • Bryan Lidtke I think it's important to discuss for a variety of reasons, including:
    1) What if this were to happen to you or the pastor at your congregation? It's nice to see what happened in a previous case. 
    2) What if those involved are currently in your congregation or is your pastor? Once again, it's nice to know what happened. 
    3) If this were to stay only among the affected people and the congregation and the district, what happens when there's a disagreement? I mean, I'm pretty sure the Donnans are upset about what has occurred. Since the congregation and the district leadership sided against them, who's allowed to help them?
    4) I think it's pretty easy to know the full story - ask those involved! From my conversations with those involved, this blog post is a factual and accurate summary of what has transpired.
    2 hrs · Edited · Like · 5
  • Sherrie Rardin I respectfully disagree. It was made a public matter by their decision to file not one but four lawsuits and to hold a public meeting about the matter. Pastors, DPs, etc are not infallible. Sometimes it takes sheep standing and reminding the shepherd of the path.
    2 hrs · Like · 6
  • Bryan Lidtke ^ Forgot to mention that. Thanks, Sherrie! As Sherrie said, a public lawsuit in a public court makes things public I would say.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Joe Jewell Exactly. The two aspects that absolutely make this public are the lawsuits filed against the victims (absolutely unbelievable in my mind), which actually did put the entire thing irretrievably on the public record--that was the plaintiffs' poor choice if privacy was the goal--and the fact that he was subsequently placed back into the public ministry. I would agree with Nick that there would be no reason to have a (public) thought on this at all otherwise. However, given those two facts, it's quite right that it be discussed.
    1 hr · Like · 5
  • Nick Brander 1) What has happened in a previous case has little to no relevance in the immediate need to deal with a situation. In specific cases such as these, God's Law and Moral law need no historical precedence

    I'm going to combine 2, 3 and 4) Since we don't know the full story, and asking those involved has certainly not worked well already, is there something that we don't know that swayed the District Presidents choice to grant Pastor Ski CRM status? The district and the pastors involved are certainly not telling us.

    To approach it from the unpopular angle, is there conclusive proof that Ski acted in such a way that could be deemed inappropriate? Not to diminish the claim, as such allegations are always serious allegations, but just as the pastor is not infallible, so to are the congregants.

    Since we know that Ski has received and accepted a call to Texas, it is their prerogative to find out everything they can about the pastor they are calling, and it is not our job to cast the shadow of doubt on someone when we don't know all the facts.

    There is too much conjecture to form an opinion on what happened without taking the risk of forming a harmful opinion in error of the truth. It would not serve us at all to get involved in this.
    1 hr · Like
  • Daniel Baker Actually, per the public testimony issued in a Court of Law:
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Daniel Baker Q: Okay, so you believe that there were indiscretions by the pastor directly towards Jonathan’s wife that occurred by the pastor, correct?

    A: Yes, which were addressed. And then once he resigned, it was over because he is no longer a pastor. That happened in the middle of April.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Bryan Lidtke How has asking those involved not worked well? Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Daniel Baker So the supervising pastor admitted that wrongdoing occurred, and that the issue was "closed" because the perpetrator was removed from the Ministry. However, his readmittance to the Ministry makes this very much worthy of discussion.
    1 hr · Like · 6
  • Nick Brander That the supervising pastor said that there were indiscretions, but Mrs. Dannon says that the supervising pastor was part of it at times and that nothing was done to address him says to me there is something more going on, and that we do not have all the information, and without all the information, it would not become us to form an opinion or make a discussion of it.
    1 hr · Like
  • Nick Brander To put it bluntly, I don't see the need for us to stick our noses into something that we are not involved in.
    1 hr · Like
  • Nick Brander If the Dannons have an issue with the ruling of the District and its President, than it would seem to me that the next appropriate course of action is for them to approach the Council of Presidents
    1 hr · Like
  • Bryan Lidtke They've done that and talked to some other synod officials, as well. Nothing has really been resolved. What's next?
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Daniel Baker We are involved, because our congregations are in fellowship with a pastor who resigned for sexually inappropriate conduct, whose supervising pastor said, under oath, that he resigned for said indiscretions, and yet who was allowed back into the Ministry and transferred elsewhere. Now he has the potential to be transferred to a parish near you. That definitely is our business.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Daniel Baker I don't recall "Council of Presidents" being one of Jesus' steps in St. Matthew 18.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Beckie Grunewald So what do you hope to achieve by talking about it here? Are there people here with authority to do something?
    1 hr · Like
  • Daniel Baker As for me, I wasn't planning to comment, but the "we should just be quiet and never question Holy Mother" mentality gets me every time. I imagine Bryan started this thread because people were derailing the CRM Status thread with this unsavory topic.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Joe Jewell Personally although this may be a "fait accompli" (though I don't necessarily concede that), exposing this case--which I and many, many others feel was handled quite improperly--helps to ensure that either 1) we stand by our practice of reassigning or granting quickie calls to former pastors in similar situations, only this time in the light of day rather than in the hasty way it was done over the objection of many in and out of the district; or 2) it doesn't happen again. 2) is my preferred outcome, personally.

    Finally, secrecy and attempted secrecy are essentially what created the unsavory situation in the first place. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant. In particular, the nature of the offense (and the lack of repentance that filing the lawsuits demonstrates) means that it absolutely needs to be widely known. Suppose you were considering joining a certain congregation in Texas, or the congregation of the supervising pastor in Wisconsin! This is absolutely and completely relevant, at the minimum, for every woman and every married man. People move around and travel so much these days (both parishioners and called workers). If this is all above-board, let it be known--it is, after all, the PUBLIC ministry.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 2
  • Bryan Lidtke Yeah, as I said in the OP, this was brought up in the CRM thread and this is off-topic with what was in that thread, so I started one to discuss this in particular.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Sherrie Rardin Beckie, if "authority to do something" is now a criterion for discussion, then there need be no more about anything. I personally believe as WELS members we have a right and a responsibility to go to our pastors about things within our church body as a...See More
    47 mins · Like · 3
  • Cathy Probst I find this extremely disturbing. I hope the Texas' church's professional liability insurance is up to date and paid in full.



  • Beckie Grunewald Sherrie what I mean is that if people just sit here and go "that's horrible" and then continue to talk about the details but that's it, it just becomes gossip. When I told my husband about it, he made a note to talk to his circuit about it, because it seems wrong and unsavory. But even as we have public details of the suit filed we dont have public knowledge of what happened between Ski and anyone else as far as counseling. It is conjecture and speculation.
    55 mins · Edited · Like
  • Bryan Spiff Grefsheim Disgusting, but sadly not surprising. We all fall short, but the district leadership really let their members down. I'll also add that these two "pastors" clearly were absent when they covered 1 Corinthians 6 at the Sem!
    16 mins · Like · 1
  • Steve Spencer There's really no need for any conjecture or speculation. The necessary facts, straight from those involved - 
    10 mins · Like · 3
FACT: Ski was suspended by the DP "for cause," and that cause was sexual impropriety - it matters not of what kind. Period. 
FACT: In almost every case of such a suspension for a sexual cause, regardless of the circumstances, the man is out for good. 
FACT: In a VERY few cases of this nature, the man at the very least must wait 2 years to even apply for CRM status. 
FACT: Then the application must go through the District Presidium AND the ALL the Pastors of that district. They, then have the opportunity to oppose the granting of CRM status. 
FACT: ONLY after the two-years wait, and the approval by the District is the man even eligible to be placed on Call Lists for consideration. 
FACT: In Ski's case, the district 2nd VP strongly objected, as well as a number of other Pastors, including some CPs. 
FACT: In no other case has the two-year rule been waved. 
FACT: In no other case has an objection by a VP and other District Pastors been dismissed. These are the facts. 
  • Now, in this case, it has strenuously been denied by various leaders that there was any "deal" involved, or any "quid pro quo" on anyone's part. I'm certainly willing to accept that. However, as I have pointed out to them, the "appearance of evil" is still quite clear and evident, and enough just cause to re-visit the situation and make public the emails and conversations surrounding the circumstances of the case, especially how it ended with Ski as a Pastor again so soon. If this were the government, or a large business, such communications would be demanded by the press and all those who are concerned for propriety. We're not talking about the sanctity of the "confessional" here, but of how the very public Call process was used in this specific case. Again, there is no speculation about the actual facts. They are what they are. That some leaders are being judged as being less than honest in this case is their own fault, and they hold the remedy - making everything open and above board.

***

GJ - These innocents should realized that all the members are paying for the abusers, through higher insurance premiums. They not only pay the costs of the settlements, but also the court costs, which were quite high just for the Scott Zerbe case in the Michigan District.

Michigan DP was resentful that he had to check out the abusive history of the pastors as an insurance requirement. He and others like him were the reason why the insurance companies insisted - because the settlements were so expensive.

Rejection of justification by faith,
replacing it with universal absolution without faith,
has consequences.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11615

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>