People often ask how the Lutheran Church in the United States could be so lacking in doctrinal leadership, so intent on following the Church of Rome or the seminary in Pasadena. Oddly enough, this Rome/Reformed toxic combination is found in ELCA, Missouri, WELS, the ELS, and even the Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic).
The denominational seminaries are completely inbred. The more one can brag about degrees from that seminary, the more likely he is to teach there. This multiplies the Uncle Fritz problem. No one can disagree with any opinion from Uncle Fritz because everyone is related to Uncle Fritz. The whole extended family will be upset, so doctrinal infallibility is passed from Rome to Luther-land. WELS has published something like six volumes of its drivel (Our Great Heritage, etc.) from the recent past while slowing down the Hoenecke set to the point where the last volume may be the Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation.
Note the following examples:
ELCA has sent its mission leadership to Fuller Seminary and tried all those goofy marketing schemes, such as their mega-church flop in Yorba Linda, California. ELCA has also crawled into the lap of the Antichrist, hoping to be acknowledged as a cuddly Shetland Sheepdog rather than a vigilant German Shepherd.
WELS has set a record in promoting Church Growth doctrines, in sending pastors to Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek Community Church for training. WELS also invited Roman Catholic Archbishop Weakland to be a featured speaker at Wisconsin Lutheran College. No one seemed to mind much, not even the ELS. The Church of Rome got so tired of Weakland's romantic problems that they fired him.
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod may have spent more synodical money at Fuller than WELS, and Missouri even had a pastor as a faculty member at Fuller, no small achievement. Better yet, Missouri had five people on the list of Who's Who in Church Growth, (Church Growth: The State of the Art). Dual memberships (Lutheran and Reformed) are supposed to be the mark of liberal ELCA, but Missouri has many congregations that are also members of the Willow Creek Association. Wallace Schulz admitted in a recent essay that he promoted Church Growth in his early years. Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, started a D.Min. program in Church Growth under the leadership of Robert Preus.
The ELS has protected the Church Growth Movement from criticism in its "confessional" group. They endorsed Valleskey's Spoiling the Egyptians motto, borrowed from Larry Crab. Isn't it a marvel that WELS/ELS will xerox Reformed doctrine and then xerox a defense for Reformed doctrine from a man famous for his association with Fuller? No creativity there at all.
The Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic) produced a moronic newsletter called While It Is Day. This newsletter was published under the noses of the distingushed faculty of Immanuel Lutheran College and passed out to unwary students who imagined they were Lutheran. In that newsletter their leading theologians of Church Growth, David Koenig and Paul Tiefel Junior, supported Church Growth doctrine and Romanism. Koenig is famous for devoting an entire hour of his worship service to a rant on how the Roman Catholics did mission work but the Lutherans did not. The CLC (sic) sent him out again as a world missionary to spread the Good News.
Someone said that an ecumenist is a person who loves every denomination except his own.
The lack of a thorough doctrinal education is lacking in the Lutheran church bodies today. The professorships are political appointments designed to appease the apostate wing of each group. ELCA is simply zanier because the group is a few years ahead of Missouri, WELS, and the the three-letter synods (ELS, CLCs, LCR).
The people who want to fix things are another band of rogues. They are politicians first, willing to bend and twist their own flexible opinions so they can replace the current leadership. If we go back a few years, the synodical leaders were published authors for the most part. Hoenecke influenced the Wisconsin Synod because they respected his doctrinal leadership. Lenski was a district president as well as being a parish pastor, but he is primarily known as the author of his New Testament commentaries. Walther, Pieper, and their acolytes published grave errors in doctrine, but at least they made their positions public and open to debate.
The people now longing to be district or synod president have no formal education in theology. A seminary education is only a beginning. The Reformation was led by theologians, not by men who stopped learning when ordained. A formal program leading to a Ph.D. may provide an excellent education. Others can do it, with guidance, through years of independent study. Chemnitz and Loy are two giants of self-study whose work continues to astound people today. A doctoral program may turn someone into an atheist, but a first parish can do the same thing.
The most troubling thing about today's leadership is the constant waffling about every issue. They are for and against everything. They turn to their seminary notes and rest on that education as the last word on any issue. That is why so many discussions revolve around "What did Walther mean by church?" and "What is the history of Church and Ministry in WELS?" People who have time for such synodical navel-gazing have no energy for the Book of Concord.
ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Bad Theology Comes from No Education
Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Dan and Rolf Preus
Dan and Rolf Preus are sons of the late Robert Preus.
Rolf heads the UOJ Inquisition Unit at LutherQuest(sic). At one point Rolf read a provisional chapter of Thy Strong Word, the one on justification, which he requested. He emailed me that he agreed with the chapter. Later, before Thy Strong Word was available to anyone, he claimed he had read the book - impossible - and disagreed with it. When I pointed out on LQ (sic) that he did not own the book, he asked to swap his tiny booklet on justification for my 650 page opus on the efficacy of the Word. So, if he owned the book, read it, and rejected it, why did he want a free copy? My lawyer at Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe advised me that the swap was a clear evasion of the IRS code, so I demurred.
Rolf also expressed agreement once on LQ(sic) with what I was saying about justification by faith. That was quickly buried by posts from the UOJ team. Rolf returned to his role as the Torquemada of the Internet. Rolf agrees with the ELS sect about UOJ but he was kicked out of his parish anyway by Pope John the Malefactor, another exponent of UOJ.
Dan Preus was the silent First Vice President of the LCMS. For several years he said nothing and did nothing, awaiting his chance to be another Al Barry, saying nothing and doing nothing as Synodical President. Alas, Dan was voted out of office and is now on the conservative list to be VP again.
Dan has given a paper repeating the magical formulas of UOJ. Doubtless this will be added to the canonical literature on forgiveness without faith, grace without the Means of Grace, documents stretching all the way to the 1930's. Roman Catholics are not the only ones to claim their new opinions are the ancient doctrines of the Church.
Dan and Rolf are listed as editors of Justification and Rome. Their reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking if they read the book, made corrections where necessary, and still missed their father's clear repudiation of UOJ. Maybe they thought the book was Just a Vacation in Rome.
Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Cascione
Cascione has declared fellowship with the Wisconsin Synod sect, so his UOJ opinion will remain unchallenged.
Jack makes other UOJ advocates seem rather calm and normal in comparison. The others do not phone me at night and rant at me for telling the truth.
Below is an except from Cascione's review of the misbegotten God's Word Bible. I thought Cascione withdrew his description of Preus: "He looked at the passages in "God's Word" that mistranslated justification "by" and "through" faith and burst into uncontrolled weeping." But this review is still posted on the Defaming Walther website. (That's the Missouri nickname for Jack's domain. His nicknames are Greasy Jack and Mad Jack. Not many pastors earn two nicknames!)
********************************************************************************
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00150.htm
A Review of the Revised "God's Word" Bible
By Rev. Jack Cascione
The following article is a review of the most recent edition of "God's Word" translation of the Bible. This article will give the reader some insight into the struggles of producing a translation of the Bible that correctly presents the saving faith of Jesus Christ. Just a simple change from being "justified by faith" instead of being "justified because of faith" is the difference between heaven and hell. It was Doctor Robert Preus who put on enough pressure to make the changes in the most recent edition.
You may want to keep this for your records. We also recommend that you share it with your pastor." Christians News (573-237-3110) is publishing the other documents mentioned in this review. The review was written at the request of Rev. Herman Often. You are welcome to respond to and discuss this review by looking for the subject title "God's Word" Translation on Jusification on the Luther Quest [sic] Discussion Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God's Word" Bible Revised on Justification By Faith
After nearly 13 years, beginning when it was first called "God's Word to the Nations" and then called "The New Evangelical Translation" and then called "God's Word" a full revised translation is now in print.
Having worked closely with the translation process from 1985-90, I was shocked to see how the 1995 edition of "God's Word" had distorted the passages dealing with justification by faith.
I visited Dr. Robert Preus at his home in Minnesota and showed him the problem when we were alone in his study.
Doctor Preus was never given to emotion; at least not in the years I had worked for him and known him. He looked at the passages in "God's Word" that mistranslated justification "by" and "through" faith and burst into uncontrolled weeping.
After he composed himself, he promised he would write a letter and correct all of this. A copy of that letter written to Dr. Harold Buls, Dr. Wilhelm Peterson, and Rev. Lawrence Burgdorf on May 9, 1995 is in my files. There is a second letter written to Rev. Hackbardt, the Executive Director of "God 's Word to the Nations Bible Society."
I'm delighted to report that many of the passages that Preus complained about were corrected in the latest printing of "God's Word" which will now be described as "God's Word Revised" edition.
Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne
"This is not a handbook on how to do certain things, not offering us gimmicks, procedures, models, and the like, although there is much of practical material to be found throughout. It is rather a theology of church growth and missions." [foreword by Robert Preus]
Waldo J. Werning, LCMS, The Radical Nature of Christianity, Church Growth Eyes Look at the Supernatural Mission of the Christian and the Church, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1975, p. 9.
"In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus' concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts “make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.” What is more, the districts were to be urged to “organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.” By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that “the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’’Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.
During this period Robert Preus advocated UOJ. I have copied his newsletter article via Jack Cascione's weird website, below:
"Dr. Robert Preus on Justification
By Rev. Jack Cascione
Dr. Greg Jackson has repeatedly stated on Luther Quest that Dr. Robert Preus was not in agreement with Objective Justification. I served as the PR Director for Fort Wayne from 1978-1981. “Missouri In Perspective” the ELIM paper, criticized the LC-MS position on Objective Justification. As editor for the Concordia Theological Seminary - Fort Wayne “News Letters” I asked Dr. Preus to respond in the Spring 1981 Issue. The following is his reply, plus other relative excerpts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE – "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION"
The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).
Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.
THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ'’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, "It is finished." And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).
All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, "We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead." (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)
OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, "Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God."
THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification "merely" a "Lutheran term" to denote that justification is available to all as a recent "Lutheran Witness" article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a "theologoumenon" (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in "Missouri in Perspective" (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.
THE CENTRAILITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: "When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ."
THE ISSUE AT OUR SEMINARY
Many of our readers know that our seminary, and one professor in particular, has been recently criticized for undermining this comforting and clear teaching of objective justification. The criticism and garbled accounts of the situation have become so widespread lately that I must now comment on the matter in this issue of the "Newsletter.
For over 15 years now Professor Walter A. Maier, Jr., has been teaching a course in the book of Romans, and, although he states he has always presented the doctrine of objective justification as taught in our synod (e.g. in the "Brief Statement"), he has taught in class that some of the key passages used in our church to support the doctrine actually do not speak to the subject at all. As a result some within the seminary community and some outside concluded that Dr. Maier did not in fact believe, teach, and confess the article of objective justification. A few – very few – complaints were brought against Dr. Maier and against the seminary for letting this go on.
The president of our synod, who has the responsibility for supervising doctrine in the synod, contacted me and asked me to try to settle the issue and to persuade Dr. Maier to teach an interpretation of the pertinent passages (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:16-19; II Corinthians 5:19) compatible with that which the great teachers of our church in the past (C. F. W. Walther, Francis Pieper, Theodore Engelder, George Stoeckhardt, Martin Franzmann, William Beck and others) publicly taught. Meetings and discussions immediately took place between Dr. Maier and myself. Later on the matter was considered in faculty meetings, in department meetings, and in special committees appointed to discuss and hopefully to settle the issue. During these meetings, which were always most cordial, Dr. Maier has remained unpersuaded that his interpretation of the pertinent passages is faulty. At the same time he has consistently assured all that he has always taught the doctrine of objective justification as understood in the Missouri Synod. He has, however, referred to other biblical evidence for the doctrine.
In the meantime the president of the synod, growing anxious for a clear solution to the problem wrote to the entire church body a letter cautioning congregations not to nominate Dr. Maier for president of the synod until the issue was cleared up to his satisfaction.
Now the issue became political, and protests and criticisms against the president of the synod for his action and also against Dr. Maier'’ teaching began to multiply all over the synod. People naturally began to take sides, not always so much on the doctrinal issue which was not always understood and is still being discussed at our seminary, but for ecclesiastical and personal reasons. We now know that the warning of our synodical president against Dr. Maier not only failed to dissuade congregations from nominating Dr. Maier for the presidency of our synod (as Fourth Vice-President Dr. Robert Sauer had forewarned when attempting to persuade the synodical president not to send his letter), but possibly gained more nominations for Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is now one of the five men nominated for the presidency of our synod.
On January 30, 1981, the Board of Control met with Dr. Maier and three representatives of the synodical praesidium (which had severely criticized Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stance). We heard from two members of the praesidium and then from Dr. Maier and two faculty members who he had requested to accompany him. The results of this meeting, many of us believed, represented a real breakthrough in understanding, and the Board exonerated Dr. Maier of any false doctrine. It was my belief that the representatives of the praesidium present were also satisfied and happy with the report. In the discussions of this meeting Dr. Maier expressed many genuine concerns related to the doctrine of objective justification, e.g., that no one is saved eternally who is not justified by faith, that God is even now angry with those who reject Christ and do not repent, and that objective justification ought to be preached and taught in such a way that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is always prominent. The report, in the form of a news release, is found on page 4 of the "Newsletter", and I urge the reader to read it because "The Reporter," "The Lutheran Witness," and most of the newspapers over the country which reported on the matter did not reproduce the report in its entirety. At the same meeting the Board of Control strongly expressed its disapproval of some of the actions of our synodical president in the matter.
Meanwhile the administration of the seminary, with the concurrence of the Board of Control, determined that it would be best for the seminary and for Dr. Maier if he not teach the course in Romans during the next academic year. At first I tried to keep this matter private, but later I decided to make a public report of the fact. My reason for this was threefold. First, Dr. Maier was reported in the news media all over the country as stating that he had not changed his position on the doctrine of objective justification, suggesting o many that three years of discussions with him had been quite fruitless and that he still did not wholeheartedly believe in objective justification. Second, several people sympathetic to Dr. Maier had threatened to withhold funds from the seminary and had even reported our action to the accrediting association of our seminary, "The Association of Theological Schools;" it was obvious to me that they would make the matter of Dr. Maier’s courses public whenever it served their purposes. Third, the president of the synod was preparing a release revealing the fact that Dr. Maier would not be teaching Romans during the next academic year. I thought it would be preferable that the president of the seminary make this fact known rather than those who have no business making such and announcement and who might make the announcement in a way detrimental either Dr. Maier or the seminary.
This is where the matter now stands. The Board of Control has stated its confidence in the doctrine of Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is presently teaching Romans, will teach the course this summer, but is slated to teach courses other than Romans next year. The faculty will continue to discuss and try to achieve total agreement in the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which teach objective justification.
A PLEA FOR CONCERN AND UNDERSTANDING
Through this entire and uncomfortable time the Board of Control and the administration of the seminary have found themselves in an understandably awkward position. We are pledged to remain faithful to the doctrinal position of our church, a position which we believe with all our hearts, and we will not deviate from this obligation one iota. We are at the same time pledged to defend a professor and colleague if he fails under unjust attack or abuse. I think we were able to maintain this delicate balance while the present issue was pending, until the political issue was injected. Now we find ourselves uncomfortably between two rather large conflicting elements in our synod, both friends of our seminary; those who believe that the president of the synod, whether they agree with his actions or not, had legitimate concerns about the doctrinal position of Dr. Maier, and those who believe that Dr. Maier had been wronged by the president of the synod and that the seminary could have done more to defend and protect him. How can we respond to this divisive situation in the middle of which we find ourselves? We can only say that we regret deeply the anxiety and consternation which good friends of our seminary have experienced because of the episodes I have recounted. May I ask these friends to bear with us and put the best construction on how we have acted in these circumstances. If you question Dr. Maier’s teaching on justification, please read and believe the report on page and trust the honesty and sincerity of those, including Dr. Maier, who had a part in releasing it. If you believe that Dr. Maier has been wronged by various parties during the last three year which have been trying to him, please believe that our Board of Control and all here at Concordia agree with you; but God, who saved this lost world and forgave the sins of mankind before anyone ever asked Him, commands us also to forgive those who wrong us. And please do not try to defend Dr. Maier by denying the public teaching of the Lutheran Church. God’s forgiveness shines bright and clear above all the pettiness and weakness and wrongs and controversy that have transpired in connection with our dear colleague Dr. Maier, and it WILL cover the sins of us all. Lent teach us this, and Easter confirms it.
ROBERT PREUS, President
For those who wish to read more on Objective Justification the following articles can be secured from our bookstore for a nominal charge:
H. J. Bouman _Conference Paper on Romans 4:5" "Concordia Theological Monthly" (CTM), Vol. 18, 1947, pp. 338-347.
Theodore Engelder, "Objective Justification," CTM, Vol. 4, 1933, pp. 507-516, 564-577, 664, 675.
Theodore Engelder, "Walther, a Christian Theologian," CTM, Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 801-815.
Martin H. Franzmann, "Reconciliation and Justification," CTM, Vol. 21, 1950, pp. 81-93.
E. W. A. Koehler, "Objective Justification, CTM, Vol. 16, 1945, pp. 217-235.
Miscellanea, "God Purposes to Justify Those That Have Come to Faith," CTM, Vol. 14, 1943, pp. 787-791.
George Stoeckhardt, "General Justification," "Concordia Theological Quarterly," April, 1978, pp. 139 – 144.
STATEMENT ADDED TO PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
While the president’s message "Objective Justification" was being typeset, an "Official Notice" from the president of Synod was issued which bears on the Walter A. Maier matter. In the notice the president of Synod expressed his disagreement with our Board action which announced a "basic understanding" with Dr. Maier on objective justification. I felt compelled to respond on behalf of our Board of Control with an Official Notice from the Seminary. This Official Notice which seeks to clarify the Board’s action and position vis-Ã -vis Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stand has been submitted to "The Reporter." It is herewith appended to the present article for our readers’ information. – Robert Preus
BOARD OF CONTROL MEETS WITH SEMINARY PROFESSOR
The Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, has announced that a basic understanding resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30th, between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr., of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members. In a January 5-6 meeting the Praesidium stated that, in its opinion, "Doctor Walter A. Maier, Jr., holds a position different from that of the official doctrinal position of the Synod."
At the January 30 meeting, however, Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his belief that on the basis of Christ’s vicarious atonement God has put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous; that the benefits of this objective forgiveness are appropriated only by faith; the even though the entire human race has been redeeme3d, the Law in all its severity, including the wrath of God against sinners as well as the Gospel of forgiveness must be preached to all, including Christians. According to the Gospel, God is indeed reconciled; according to the Law, the wrath of God abides on all who reject Christ and His work of reconciliation, refuse to repent, and live in their sins.
Dr. Robert Sauer, Dr. George Wollenburg, and former synodical vice-president Dr. Theodore Nickel represented the praesidium at the January 30 meeting. Professors Kurt Marquart and Howard Tepker of the seminary faculty were also present.
The frank five-hour exchange focused on several theological issues which were isolated for clarification. The discussion showed that there have been misunderstandings, unclear thinking, and poor communication because of overstatements, lifting of phrases and snippets of doctrinal expression out of context, and sometimes even pressing of casual expressions to ultimate conclusions not intended by the speakers.
More than semantic differences surfaced early in the January 30th meeting. At the close, however, basic agreement emerged on such topics as the wrath of God, Law and Gospel, and "objective justification" – a term used in the Lutheran Church to summarize a concept in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions that forgiveness and justification because of the death of Christ are objectively available for all mankind through the ages, whether or not individuals appropriate it through faith.
Difference in the interpretation of several critical passages remain. The Seminary board, as well as Dr. Maier, is concerned that variant interpretations can lead to a misinterpretation of doctrine. Therefore, the Seminary board reported, discussions will continue by the faculty.
Dr. Maier stated: "I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper ‘prepared for faculty discussion purposes only’ have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod’s historic position."
In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).
"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."
"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘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 3:30).
"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:
"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68."
Following the meeting Board Chairman Raymond N. Joeckel commented, "We only wish that we could have reached this stage of the discussions and that we could have had this kind of interchange before unfortunate statements appeared in the public press. The church can learn from this that the Lord blesses sincere efforts to discuss and clarify the meaning and message of the Holy Scriptures."
COMMENT ON AN OFFICIAL NOTICE
The Official Notice of our synodical president regarding Dr. Walter A. Maier and the doctrine of objective justification in the March 30 issue of "The Lutheran Witness Reporter" requires an answer by me as president and executive officer of the Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary where Dr. Maier teaches.
Once again we wish to express our deep appreciation to the president for his recognition of the central importance of the doctrine of objective justification and his concern that this comforting teaching be taught clearly at our school. We agree wholeheartedly with his citation from Dr. Francis Pieper, ""he doctrine of objective justification is of vital important to the entire Christian doctrine. Only by keeping this doctrine intact will the Christian doctrine remain intact. It will be irretrievably lost if this doctrine is abandoned."
However, there are some serious inaccuracies and mistaken judgments in the Official Notice which call for correction and comment.
First, the president of the Synod points to an apparent conflict between my summary of the issues on the subject of justification sent to the Board of Control December 23, 1980, and some later statements made by me and the Board of Control concerning Dr. Maier’s position. In the December statement I described Dr. Maier’s position as he expressed it to the Board at its November, 1980 meeting (with the president of Synod in attendance). There I state that Dr. Maier can find no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine of objective justification and no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine that God was reconciled (put His anger aside) on account of the ransom paid by Christ. Two months later I stated that Dr. Maier "has always believed" – it would have been better to have said "has consistently affirmed to the Board and to me his belief" – in objective justification; and the Board in its release said that Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his believe that on the basis of Christs’s vicarious atonement God put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous." The explanation for this apparent discrepancy lies in the simple fact that in the January meeting of the Board of Control (which the president of Synod did not attend) Dr. Maier clearly affirmed that Scripture does in fact teach the doctrine of objective justification and that on the basis of Christ’s atonement God put away His wrath, whereas in the November meeting, as reported, he did not do so. An so "all" the statements cited are true and factual
Our synodical president says "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change their judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." This must be a mistake. Former Vice-President Theodore Nickel and Vice-President George Wollenburg, together with Vice-president Robert Sauer, represented the Praesidium at the January Board meeting. Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg criticized Dr. Maier’s position at the meeting. But when Dr. Maier affirmed his belief that objective justification was taught in Scripture (I Timothy 3:16) and that God’s wrath has been appeased through the death of His Son, the Board gained the distinct impression that both Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg were sufficiently satisfied that Dr. Maier was not at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod. At least, these two men never expressed themselves to the contrary to the Board or to Dr. Maier. The Board report of the January 30 meeting with Dr. Maier and representatives of the Praesidium has been out since February 2, and so Dr. Wollenburg and Dr. Nickel have had plenty of time to dissociate themselves from it, if they wanted to do so. It does seem strange to us that the president of the Synod did not announce his misgivings soon after the Board meeting and news release, but rather waited until after Dr. Maier has been clearly nominated for the presidency of the Missouri Synod.
Furthermore, Vice-President Sauer is a member of the Board of Control and had a hand in writing and issuing the Board release of February 2. According to the February 14 St. Louis Globe Democrat Dr. Sauer said, "’After a recent discussion lasting several hours,’ Dr. Maier ‘appears to be in a position of changing with regard to the vital doctrinal matter.’" So the president of our Synod apparently is not including Dr. Sauer when he said, "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change the judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." Perhaps there are other vice-presidents he is not including.
The suggestion of our synodical president that the Board of Control is engaging in a
cover up in regard to Dr. Maier is unkind and false. The Board has acted with utmost integrity. While the president may differ with the Board’s conclusion and decision in the Maier matter, it is not right of him publicly to question the ethics and posture of the Board in the entire matter.
The president’s only evidence for a cover up is the fact that the Board did not publicly announce that Dr. Maier would not be teaching a course in the Book of Romans beginning with the next academic year. This was not considered significant for the news release. At the same meeting the Board also objected "strenuously" to "certain things" done by the president of the Synod "which are high-handed, inexcusable, and harmful to Dr. Maier or our school." The Board did not think of including such items in its release either, and that out of love and concern for the reputation of our synodical president. The omission of pertinent or irrelevant facts in a release does not necessarily constitute a "cover up." If it did, the president of the Synod would be guilty of a serious "cover up." In his Official Notice he omitted any mention of a verbatim quotation from Dr. Maier in the Board release, affirming that Scripture does indeed teach objective justification. Dr. Maier’s statement goes as follows, "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made…..to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed ‘made a curse for us’ (Galations 3:13). In this sense the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and Sacraments of Christ." It was on the basis of this statement and other assurances given by Dr. Maier that the Board announced in its February 2 release that a "basic understand resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30 between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr. of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (Praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members."
We share our synodical president’s "frustration and amazement" at the confusion which shrouds both the issue itself and the way it has been handled. I know I speak for Dr. Maier and the Board of Control when I say that we all are sorry for anything we have said or done which adds to this confusion. I am sure that the president of the Synod too is sorry for what he has contributed to the confusion and misunderstanding which surrounds the matter. It is my hope that this response to his Official Notice will serve to clarify the matter."
Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Valleskey, Bivens, Kelm
All three have been exalted to the highest rank by WELS. They are the Doctors of the Church in the Wisconsin sect.
All three teach UOJ and Church Growth.
Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Preuss
This Preuss was no relation to Robert and Jack Preuss.
Fuerbringer wrote about E. Preuss in his Eighty Eventful Years book about the LCMS. Preuss was one their 19th century orthodox professors, to use the term broadly and with great flexibility. One day he prayed that God would show him a sign about which church was true. He saw a brilliant red sunset and decided that meant he should be a Roman Catholic. He then published (anonymously) a book defending Roman Catholic doctrine. One person said, "First you defended Lutheran doctrine. Now you attack it. How can that be?" Preuss said, "Give me the documents and I can prove anything."
Obviously Preuss was an Enthusiast. He let his feelings of the moment sweep him into the embrace of Rome. An Enthusiast obtains salvation from outside the Word. Luther - all Lutherans - condemn Enthusiasm. This condemnation is found in the Book of Concord, the Smalcald Articles. God does not speak to us through sunsets and rainbows. The Holy Spirit does not say, "John, I know you want to stay in Ukraine, but I need you in Asia."
No one wrote more clearly about UOJ than Preuss. He is still mentioned today.
Justification WITHOUT Faith - The UOJ Blasphemy
Introduction
Someone asked about Objective Justification, which hides under various names: General, Universal, etc. Church Growth Enthusiast David Valleskey (WELS) gave the official definition:
"In Christ, God has effected a universal justification, a universal reconciliation, a universal ransom, a universal atonement. Different terms, but all communicating the same message: God in Christ has declared the whole world to be not guilty."
David J. Valleskey, We Believe--Therefore We Speak, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1995, p. 71. (Valleskey is the Dean of Church Growth in WELS, a former student of Fuller Seminary. Valleskey denied to the author, face to face, that he went to Fuller. Valleskey admitted to CLC Pastor David Koenig that he went to Fuller. Valleskey's congregation, Apostles, remembers when he bragged in the church bulletin about going to Fuller. Frosty Bivens, his friend and co-conspirator, bragged to the Midland Circuit pastors about going to Fuller Seminary, then denied going to Fuller Seminary. Bivens, needless to say, is a big fan of OJ.)
OJ or UOJ means that God has declared everyone free from sin, innocent, without the Word, without the Means of Grace, without faith. The Kokomo Statements were used to get rid of two families in WELS. The statements came from the synod, not from the two families. WELS lied about the origin of the statements (calling them a parody of justification), pretending the families wrote them. No, the families objected to the false doctrine, which Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary defended and Sig Becker supported in a published paper. Three of the Kokomo Statements came almost verbatim from Mequon professor J. P. Meyer’s NPH book, Ministers of Christ. The fourth came from WELS Pastor Papenfuss.
"The two terms are relatively modern. They are not used in the Lutheran Confessions. They are also not really synonymous. 'Universal justification' is a term denoting the doctrine that God has forgiven the sins of all men. Strictly speaking, the term 'objective justification' expresses the thought that the sins of a man are forgiven by God whether he believes it or not. Objective justification is not necessarily universal, but if justification is universal it must of necessity be objective."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, p. 1. (Please explain this sentence to Suzy sitting in the font row of the Sunday School class, her mouth wide open in astonishment.)
"It must be admitted that when our Lutheran Confessions speak of justification they speak almost exclusively of that facet of justification we usually call 'subjective' justification, which has also been called 'special' or 'personal' justification. But the Confessions also show us that the basis for this justification is the justification that precedes faith."
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 13. WELS Pastor Curia became the scribe of OJ. There is no justification preceding faith, no matter what Curia or anyone else claims.
Kokomo OJ
"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of saint." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 103)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.
"After Christ's intervention and through Christ's intervention God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 107)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.
"When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 109)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.
"At the time of the resurrection of Christ, God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints." (Pastor Charles Papenfuss)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.
"Here the panel feels itself compelled to distinguish between form and content. While the form of the Four Statements is inadequate, the doctrine of objective justification it grapples with is Scriptural. The Four Statements have served to show that there is a doctrinal difference between Faith Congregation and the appellants." Report of the WELS Review Committee, Hartman, Pohlman Appeal, June 30, 1980.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 133.
LCMS – More Confusing in Expression – Same OJ
"It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That forgiveness and justification before God do not involve each other, or that justification and reconciliation are entirely different from each other, as though a person can be reconciled without being justified or justified without being reconciled."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #3.
"In normal Biblical and ecclesiastical usage the terms 'justify' and 'justification' refer to the ('subjective') justification of the individual sinner through faith (Romans 4:5, 5:1, etc.; AC IV, 3; FC SD III 25). But because theologically justification is the same thing as the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4:1-8; Ap IV, 76; FC Ep III, 7), it is Biblically and confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling, atoning work of the Redeemer as the 'objective' or 'universal' justification of the whole sinful human race. (John 1:29; Romans 5:6-18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 2:14-15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Ap IV, 103-105; LC V, 31, 32, 36, 37; FC SD III, 57)
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #4.
"Thus objective justification or reconciliation is the forgiveness of sins both as it has been acquired for the entire human race by Christ's work of obedience in its stead and declared by His resurrection, and as it is seriously and efficaciously offered to all in the means of grace." Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #5. "Subjective justification or reconciliation is this same forgiveness as it is received, appropriated by, and applied to the individual sinner through God-given faith alone (sola fide)."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #6.
"This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God. [George Stoeckhardt, Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1978, p. 138.]
Pastor Vernon Harley "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1. (Can anyone imagine a nuttier and more anti-Lutheran statement than this? An bizarre opinion will protect the Gospel? No wonder the Synodical Conference surrendered the efficacy of the Word.)
Baptist-like Formulation of OJ
J. P. Meyer, adored by WELS, presented the ridiculous concept of OJ and then added another absurdity – Make a decision about this!
"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows about it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. What will be his reaction when he is informed about this turn of events? Will he accept, or will he decline?"
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 103f. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.
Walther, Pieper, and Eduard Preuss (who converted to Catholicism)
"Christ's Glorious Resurrection from the Dead the Actual Absolution of the Entire Sinful World Here I would point out two things: 1. That This Is Certain And True, and 2. That Therefore Every Man Who Wants To Be Saved Must By Faith Accept This General Absolution As Applying Also To Him,"
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 p. 230. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8. (Put your hands on the radio and make a Decision for Christ.)
"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him." C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 p. 233. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8. (The Means of Grace are superfluous under this arrangement.)
"So, then, we are reconciled; however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world. 'Reconciled', says our translation; the Greek original says: 'placed in the right relation to God'. Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God." F. R. Eduard Preuss, 1834-1904, Die Rechtfertigung der Suender vor Gott.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 24.
"The resurrection is God's public absolution of the entire world: 'Your sins are forgiven, all sins of all human beings; and there is no exception.' This is the meaning of the technical term 'objective justification.' The objective justification is central to the doctrine of salvation and derives logically from the facts that God's reconciliation, forgiveness, and declaration of 'not guilty' in no wise depend on the attitude or behaviour of human beings. If objective justification is denied, then it must follow that those who are declared righteous in some way have contributed to God's change of heart; justification is then no longer solely the result of God's grace." [Theodore Mueller, Concordia Theological Quarterly, January, 1982, p. 29.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 3.
"Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Romans 4:25: 'Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.' The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God's act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners. (Evangelienpostille, p. 160ff.)" part one
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 321. Romans 4:25
"Scripture teaches the objective reconciliation (o.r. in italics). Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God. God does not wait for men to reconcile Him with themselves by means of any efforts of their own. He is already reconciled. The reconciliation is an accomplished fact, just like the creation of the world. Romans 5:10: 'We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' When Christ died, God became reconciled." pt. 1 of paragraph
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 347f. Romans 5:10
"The resurrection of Christ is, as Holy Writ teaches, the actual absolution of the whole world of sinners. Romans 4:25: 'Who was raised again for our justification.' At that time we were objectively declared free from sin."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 348 Romans 4:25
"It's just easier for many people to work backwards from the subjective to the objective in their thinking. In fact, upside-down evangelism may start with gospel and work back to law, stating the solution as a prelude to the problem and clarifying both at the cross." [This is Moravian Pietism, as shown by Walther's Law and Gospel.] Paul Kelm The Evangelism Life Line (WELS), Fall, 1985 p. 5. (Paul Kelm is another WELS Church Growth guru, another Fuller Seminary student.)
"As to the doctrine in general, he [Lenski] repudiates and ridicules the teaching that on Easter morning God forgave, really forgave, all the world all its sins, really and truly justified the world. He protests against making objective reconciliation, general justification, mean that God on Easter morning did actually pronounce the world, all individuals making up the world, really innocent of all sin and guilt."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 508. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. (Lenski spent his entire career carefully studying the New Testament and all the doctrinal issues involved in those 27 books. That does not make Lenski right about everything, but why should Lutherans start with theses and then find Biblical verses to support them? That is Roman Catholic exegesis.)
"Does Missouri teach 'that this, an actus simplex, is the only justification there is'? Yes and no. We do not teach that the objective justification of Easter morning is the only justification there is...But most readers of the Pastor's Monthly know that Missouri teaches that there is a) an objective justification and b) a subjective justification."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 514. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. (Two justifications must be better than one. No wonder Missouri lost its way.)
"The teaching of the Wisconsin Synod [of the Norwegian Synod] is this, that in and with the universal reconciliation, which has occurred in Christ for the whole world--even Judas; the world--even Judas--has been justified and has received the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, according to Luther's clear words ("for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation"), (even Judas) has become a child of God and an heir of heaven." Quotation from Gottfried Fritschel, "Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigung," Theologische Monatshefte, vol 4, 1871, (1-24), p. 7.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 2. Wisconsin Synod of the old Norwegian Synod - Charge made by Hasselquist, Augustana Synod. (I believe this is where Robert Preus started, with the old Norwegian Pietistic opinion about OJ.)
"The chief differences between the contestants [Norwegians and Augustana] seem to have been in the essence rather than in the effect of Absolution. Both agreed that the Gospel offered the forgiveness of sins, but the one side held that it was given only to those who in faith received it, while the other side said that it was given also to unbelievers, though they did not accept it. Both agreed that unbelievers received no benefit from such an absolution." J. Magnus Rohne, Norwegian Lutheranism up to 1872, New York, Macmillan, p. 231.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 20.
"The entire Pauline doctrine of justification stands and falls with the special article of general justification. This establishes it beyond peradventure that justification is entirely independent of the conduct of man. And only in this way the individual can have the assurance of his justification. For it is the incontrovertible conclusion: Since God has already justified all men in Christ and forgiven them their sins, I, too, have a gracious God in Christ and forgiveness of all my sins." [Quoted with approval by Theodore Engelder, from George Stoeckhardt, Commentary on Romans, p. 264.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 2.
"The chief purpose, however, is to keep this article (general justification) before the people for its own sake. It cannot be presented and studied too often. Its vital relation to the subjective, personal justification by faith, cannot be stressed too strongly. It forms the basis of the justification by faith and keeps this article free from the leaven of Pelagianism. Unless the sinner knows that his justification is already an accomplished fact in the forum of God, he will imagine that it is his faith, his good conduct, which moves God to forgive him his sins. And unless he knows that God had him personally in mind in issuing the general pardon on Easter morning, he will have no assurance of his justification." [Theodore Engelder, Concordia Theological Monthly, July/August/September, 1933. Reissued by the seminary printshop, Ft. Wayne, 1981.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1f.
Sig Becker, WELS OJ Guru
"The doctrine of universal justification is often ridiculed with the argument that if God really forgives sins prior to faith then the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith becomes meaningless. Such conclusions demonstrate a rationalistic spirit that consciously or unconsciously refuses to be guided by Scriptures alone."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated
"The forgiveness comes first. Faith is merely the response to the message."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (This is Decision Theology, associated with Billy Graham. Not without reason did Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president, Panning, hang up a poster for the Billy Graham School of Evangelism. The note said - "See Paul Kelm for more information.")
"The first three statements are taken verbatim from WELS sources."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Emphasis added.)
"Every one of the statements can be understood correctly, even though one must swallow a little hard to accede to the fourth [Kokomo Statement]."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Emphasis added - That is one fine standard of doctrinal excellence - swallowing hard.)
"Three of the four [Kokomo] statements, because of their lack of clarity, tend to confuse the issue. But since the disciplined laymen used them to advance their false doctrine, it was understandable that the congregation should also use them in its rejection of the falsehood being advocated. I do not consider any of the four statements to be false doctrine, but I would rather not use the language used in the first, second, and fourth." [conclusion of paper]
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated
"But if forgiveness comes first, if it is always there, if it is true whether I believe it or not, I do not need to know whether I have faith or not before I can cling to God's promise. I know that my sins are forgiven whether I feel forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my iniquity is pardoned whether I believe it or not. And when I know that, then I know also that I am a believer."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Confidential to Aunt Matilda: Yes, he taught at a Lutheran seminary. This is the hopeless bundle of contradictions one must juggle when starting with UOJ theses.)
Conclusion
The Synodical Conference perpetrated a fraud by teaching Justification Without Faith in the name of Universal Objective Justification or Objective Justification. Thanks to this fraudulent promotion, the Biblical doctrine of the Means of Grace has been abandoned in favor of Fuller Seminary marketing methods or Baptist Decision Theology.
UOJ seems to have built up momentum during the 1930's. The LCMS Brief Statement canonized UOJ. Pieper's Church Dogmatics carved the opinion in granite. The patethic Kokomo Statements were used by WELS to expel two families from a congregation. The LCMS 1987 Theses on Justification mixed UOJ with the Biblical doctrine, creating a hybrid.
Church Growth doctrinal apostasy has grown apace with UOJ. They are perfect matches, evenly yoked together, drawing Lutherans into the abyss. One cannot fight Church Growth while supporting UOJ.
Robert Preus Repudiated Faith-less Justification (UOJ)
1. Walther’s promotion of the Easter absolution,
2. Missouri’s debt to Pietism, and
3. The Norwegian Lutherans’ historic fondness for this opinion.
However, Preus clarified the true meaning of justification in his final book, Justification and Rome, which was published posthumously. Preus wrote this definitive comment:
"But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith." (Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.)
Preus immediately followed the statement above with a quotation from Quenstedt, one of his favorite orthodox Lutheran authors:
"It is not just the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other. Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is our formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us." (Ibid., p. 73. The citation reads “Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8. S. 2, q. 5. Observatio 19 (II, 787)".
Preus also quoted Abraham Calov with approval:
"Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe." ([Apodixis Articulorum Fide, Lueneburg, 1684] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n. The Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod chose to follow Walther’s notion of an Easter absolution for the entire world, a declaration that everyone forgiven. "For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him." C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 p. 233. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8.)
The Kuske Report on WELS Mismanagement - Copied Verbatim
"Cover Letter
IT’S TIME FOR AN ACCOUNTING
Since I was designated as delegate to the 2007 WELS Convention in New Ulm, MN, I decided to do some research. The Book of Reports and Memorials (2007 BORAM) which is prepared for the delegates, is typically a report on the previous two years and also plans for the next biennium. I hope the delegates read and study it carefully and rejoice in the things that are being accomplished. For some issues, however, a longer point of view would seem to be significant. Such a long range view is what I wanted to research.
As I heard of the budget problems, which might lead to a drastic change for the Board for Ministerial Education (for example, the closing of the Prep Schools), it seemed prudent to dig deeper to determine why, during a very prosperous time in U.S. history, such a drastic step would have to be considered. How did we get to this point.
The materials I have gathered are from the printed reports made by the Synodical leaders to the constituents of the Synod. My investigation is “broad stroke” and does not pretend to be a CPA’s report, accounting for every penny and knowing exactly when it was spent. Further, I believe that I have understated many things, so that, if one item or another is challenged, I am convinced I could find other specific items that concern me. In this way, if anything, I think my concerns are understated.
My research is presented in the following outline:
I. COVER LETTER (Page 1)
II. DEFINITIONS (Page 2)
III. OVERVIEW (Page 3)
IV. COMMENTARY (Page 4ff.)
V. PROPOSALS FOR ACTION (Page 12ff.)
IV. APPENDICES: A through I (Pages 16-28)
A—Timeline; B—Gift Trust Fund; C—Revolving Funds; D—World Missionaries; E—A 2003 Letter; F—WELS Constitution, Object & MOV; G—Statistics; H—A Parable; I—SC Executive Summary Nov. 3-4,2006 and News Release.
As I put this on the internet and wonder whether other people have similar concerns, I will allow people to pass it on. My email address is in the Synod’s directory.
I am also aware that the Synodical Council has a meeting at the end of February. The 2007 Book of Reports and Memorials will be published some time after that. I really don’t think that anything significant enough to change the general premises of this presentation can be made in those events. However, I reserve the privilege of making an addendum to this presentation, if it should be indicated.
Though I have very, very serious concerns, I have tried to view the people involved according to the English political term: “loyal opposition,” i.e., loyal to the cause of Christ but making decisions which evoke my opposition. As I stated above, there are a lot of things going on that are really very commendable.
Paul W. Kuske, pastor
Standish, MI 48658
2/2//07
SOME DEFINITIONS
I. Non-recurring Income – The Synod receives estates, one-time large gifts, special gifts, and other non-budgetary income. Because such income is not received from the same source year after year, it is prudent to classify such funds as non-recurring income. Further, there can be a considerable fluctuation in the amounts received in a year, since, for example, some estates are large and others far more limited. A prudent way of dealing with non-recurring income is in the next paragraph.
II. WELS Gift Fund (a.k.a. Gift Trust Fund) – A fund designated to receive non-recurring income. It is designed to turn non-recurring funds into a stream of predictable income. The formula that has been used is: Calculate the total of the previous balance plus investment income plus new gifts during the year; then release 30% of that total to the budgetary fund. Since the funds released are always proportionate to the total, this smooths out the fluctuations and also provides a 7-8 year lead time for adjustment, if non-recurring income starts to decrease.
III. Revolving Funds (a.k.a Restricted Funds, Auxiliary Funds, Gifts Funds) – Various units (schools, missions, etc.) of the Synod also receive non-recurring gifts. These are tracked in the umbrella unit called Revolving Funds. The individual unit of the Synod has some control over the use of the funds.
IV. SC (the Synodical Council) is the group within the organizational structure of the WELS which is charged with financial matters. Included in the decision-making process are the Praesidium of the Synod and an advisory subcommittee, known as the MOT. In this study this combination of people is designated as SC.
V. BME (the Board for Ministerial Education) is the group within the organizational structure of the WELS which administers the schools that prepare young people for the public ministry. Most of its work focuses on two prep schools, one college and one seminary.
VI. Infrastructure is any facility or service which is essential to another facility or service. In buildings, for example, infrastructure includes the electrical, sewer, and water lines. In this presentation it is the opinion of the author that recruiting and preparing well-trained pastors and teachers is infrastructure for every congregation and mission in the Synod. For more detail see page 13.
VII. Prep Schools are schools with the primary purpose and the curriculum through which high school students are recruited and prepared for further study toward the public ministry of the WELS,
VIII. CMO (SMO) (Congregational Mission Offerings, formerly Synod Mission Offerings) is used to refer to the offerings that congregations provide for the WELS Operating Budget. These offerings are combined with other streams of income (for example, Individual Mission Offerings and interest income) to provide the funds to operate the individual units of the Synod.
IX. Operating Budget is the part of the financial structure of the Synod which receives CMO, interest, and other streams of income and parcels it out to the various units of the Synod.
X. “Prudent man” principle — The business world has a principle that is called: “The Prudent Man Principle.” A business leader can defend a decision, if he can demonstrate that he has acted as any prudent man would have acted in similar circumstances. Note the following guidelines:
1 Don’t use non-recurring income (e.g. probated estates) to start programs which involve on-going costs.
2 Plan on the basis of income, not “IF-”come.
3 Using non-recurring income to balance an operating budget is not sound practice.
4 Don’t plan expansions when your income base is shrinking (whether in percentage and/or due to inflation).
5 Keep prudent, adequate reserves.
6 Don’t commingle designated funds with operating funds.
7 Sound expansion is built on a healthy infrastructure.
8 When expansion is pitted against infrastructure, the infrastructure must be considered paramount.
OVERVIEW
IT IS TIME FOR AN ACCOUNTING!
By Paul W. Kuske 12/15/06
· Since 1996 at least $60,000.000.00 of non-recurring funding has been spent, i.e., $60 million more than actual income has been spent. To spend more than income is imprudent. (More details in Appendix A- TIMELINE, which is based on supporting data in Appendices B through E. My comments on page 4ff.).
1. From 1996 to 2003 over $30 million of non-recurring funds were spent
2. Off-budget, almost $1.7 million in non-recurring funds was assigned to missions in Russia and Bulgaria. Off-budget means that it does not appear on the reports of the Operating Fund (See Appendix A).
3. The $22 million in the WELS Gift Fund (a.k.a. Gift Trust Fund) had been considered a “rainy day fund.” It was spent down to nothing by 2002. (See Appendix A for details)
4. In May of 2003 it was reported that $8.1 million (Later reports said $7 million) had been borrowed against trust funds and that there was a $1.5 million shortfall in the current fiscal year. The money borrowed against trust funds was scheduled for repayment, but repayments have been delayed.
5. One example of starting on-going programs with non-recurring funds is the addition of 19 world missionaries during this period. (See Appendices A and D.)
· By 2002 the consequences of the imprudence of using non-recurring dollars to fund on-going programs was very evident. A prescription for the serious problems that follow: More commitments, less income!
1. The “rainy day” fund was no longer available, when the cyclical economic downturn in late 2000 (exacerbated by 9/11) had adversely affected the WELS and the country. Further, after 2002 the Schwann Fund was not contributing the sizable gifts it had been sending to WELS. Restarted several years later.
2. The non-recurring funds that had accumulated over the year had been gaining interest that was used to support the budget. For each $20 million removed from the non-recurring funds $1,000,000 (or more) income in some form needed to be obtained. But the reality was that CMO offerings weren’t even keeping up with inflation. (See Appendix G.)
· The consequences of the imprudent use of non-recurring income resulted in budget cuts on the order of 25% to 30% starting in 2003. Use of non-recurring funds, both directly and indirectly, continued to the present and another $30,000,000 was disbursed, producing a total expenditure beyond income of $60,000,000. (See above)
1. More work of the Synod was moved off-budget (e.g. evangelism and youth ministry, which are now funded by the Revolving Funds) so that the non-recurring income and its income were reduced even more.
2. The world missionary corps was reduced by 17, but there were still more world missionaries in 2003 than in 1995. (Appendix D)
· The Board for Ministerial Education (BME) bore a disproportionately large proportion of the cutbacks.
1. The budget cutting for the BME was approximately doubled in percentage because the money that parents/students paid for tuition/fees was commingled with CMO. Details and illustrations are on Page 7.
2. The funds that had been given directly to the schools and were therefore in the Revolving Funds, were used to balance the budget over the last couple of years. (See Appendix C.)
3. After $20,000,000+ of these non-recurring funds was spent, it has been suggested that the schools should solicit a $300,000,000.00 trust fund to keep themselves going.
· In its November meeting the SC was planning to spending $5.8 million more of non-recurring funds. Of that amount only $2.6 million will be used to fund the prep school for one more year. Prior to that, the recommendation was made to defund the prep schools almost immediately, even though they serve a very significant function of recruiting and training (especially) future pastors, teachers, and lay ministers. (See Appendix I.)
· After serious consideration was given to defunding the prep schools, the SC and the President of the Synod decided to explore alternate methods of recruiting workers. (See Appendix I.)
· Other topics included (Page 9ff.): Communication, Priorities, Area Lutheran High School (ALHS) vs. Prep School, Fragmentation, Reorganization, What Lies Ahead?
SUPPORTING DATA and COMMENTARY
General Observations
Scope of work
Christ defined the whole world as the field of labor for his believers. However, by the resources that he provides Christ also defines the extent to which any particular Christian group can do world-wide missions.
A corollary: Because of the sinfulness of all the members of the WELS, we will probably never reach the potential that would properly reflect our Lord’s generosity to us.
Did our Synod really do so badly between 1950 and 1990?
A) The home mission program spread over the entire United States (from a primarily upper Midwest base); Communicant membership grew just less that 50% during that period.
B) In 1950 the Apache mission was our only effort at reaching people in a different culture. By 1990 we had 50 pastor trained (and 17 teacher trained) workers in World Mission efforts. Is a 1000% increase in mission workers such an inadequate effort? While our membership increased 50%?
Prudent man” principle
In financial circles people speak of a “prudent man principle.” In legalese it states: A financial officer can defend himself against the charge of an actionable criminal offense (i.e. breaking fiduciary trust) by demonstrating he has acted as any prudent man would have acted in similar circumstances. I laid out some the implications of this principle in the definitions, however, I was thinking more in terms of using the words ‘prudent’ and ‘imprudent’ as it is used in common language.
Application of the “prudent man” principle to budget preparation.
The SC is constitutionally bound to do its work in view of the purpose expressed in the Synod’s constitution (summarized as, prepare workers, missions, publishing and counseling) and the resolutions of the Synod conventions. The Synod’s priorities are the priorities of the SC.
One function of the SC is to present a “balanced budget” to the Synod in convention. By definition a balanced budget is one in which income matches (or exceeds) the planned expenditures. When 1) IFcome 2)reserves, 3) non-recurring monies and 4) borrowings against designated funds are included in projected income, it is not truly a balanced budget.
Just as contrary to the prudent man rule is starting on-going programs “off budget” or balancing the budget by placing on-going programs “off budget” (e.g. evangelism, youth ministry).
When priorities must be applied it is important to maintain infrastructure over expansion. Expansion makes good news copy, but infrastructure must be adequate to support the expansion.
Fiscal Approach
ILLUSTRATION: When a congregation is approaching a building program, a continuum can be imagined between the financial people and the visionary people. The financial people will advocate having all the money FIRST (“Show me the cash!”). The visionary people will point out that the goal of a larger membership will take care of all problems. (“Let’s make the investment; The Lord will provide, if we only trust.”)
All the members can probably be aligned at some point along the continuum. In most situations the building program will be undertaken when the people in the middle are convinced that both the financial and the visionary aspects are adequately addressed.
If, however, a disproportionate number of people are financial people, the program may not happen, because it seems the needed money never quite catches up with the proposed needs. On the other hand, if a disproportionate number of people are visionary people, the program will go forward but the congregation will overspend and a long period of serious difficulties in debt management follows.
It can also be noted that when either end of the continuum dominates a very real arrogance develops: “We know what is best for the group. Don’t disturb us with contradictory facts.”
Observations About WELS History:
A pendulum swing between financial conservatives (We need the cash first) and visionary spenders (Go for it; the Lord will provide; THE work of Synod is World Missions) is evident in WELS history
· Phase 1: In the euphoria of the 1920’s visionary excess was evident in the Synod. My father’s peers talked of the fragmented support of missions that were started on a shoe-string. Examples of “build and the Lord will bless” occurred. Of course, the Synod itself had also borrowed in the period before the Great Depression.
· Phase 2: The synod, to preserve its reputation, rolled its debt and the fragmented commitments into “the debt,” which in modern dollars approached $100 million. The iron hand of the financial people maintained the educational infrastructure even as there were payless paydays and unassigned seminary graduates. After the debt was cleared in the late 40’s the principle that “We need the cash first!” prevailed into the 60’s.
· Phase 3: The pendulum was moving through the center from late 60’s to the 80’s as ”Every state by ‘78” was an unofficial rallying cry. There was a balance between the visionary people and the financial people. Many missions were started and the world mission program that was started in the ‘50’s was expanding. The sub-structure of fiscal soundness made the expansion possible and synodical membership also grew.
· Phase 4: In the ‘90’s & 00’s the pendulum has swung to the visionary people. As has now become public knowledge, we are currently in a position where vital programs of the Synod are at risk, even as there are very few funds left that can be classified as reserves. The general tenor of this presentation will be to show why it is prudent to move the pendulum back to a central positioning and to suggest some steps that can start to bring that goal to reality.
Imprudent Management
· OVERVIEW: Since 1996 at least $60,000.000.00 of non-recurring funding has been spent, i.e., $60 million more than current income has been spent. To spend more than income is imprudent. (More details in Appendix A- TIMELINE, which is based on supporting data in Appendices B through E.)
As I have researched The BORAMs, RTTTDs and PROCEEDINGS back into the ‘80’s, it is quite evident that in the mid-90’s a switch to using the non-recurring funds to start and maintain on-going programs was initiated. For example, the missions to Russia and Bulgaria were originally funded in 1996 through an assignment of funds within the Revolving Funds (apparently $1 million apiece). This approach was eating away at the financial foundation of Synod, even as some things were being accomplished elsewhere. Therefore the basic thrust of this presentation will be that there has been imprudent management. The continued imprudent use of non-recurring funds is documented in Appendix A, which is supported by documentation in Appendices B through E. One really has to ask: Didn’t the SC realize that, as every time $10 million of non-recurring income was spent, it meant that CMO had to be increased by about $500,000/year, just to stay even? And CMO was not even keeping up with inflation! (See Appendix G)
The Background: Congregational Mission Offerings (CMO) Falling Behind Inflation
It is a fact that between 1975 and 2005 (as reported by congregations) CMO as a percentage of the total contributions fell from 14.74% to a low 6.72% in 2001 and has rebounded only to 7.33% in 2005. (See Appendix G) During the same time total congregational contributions for local purposes increased by an average of 6.55% per year which was clearly above average inflation. The average CMO increase for the 30 years was 4.00% and would have been about 3.00% without the Work While It Is Day stewardship effort in 2003.
Note especially that during the ‘90’s the increase in CMO contributions averaged only 1.17% per year. (See Appendix G.) I suggest that this fact could be interpreted as a vote of “no confidence for the SC” rather than that pastors and members were losing sight of the great commission and the Synod’s part in carrying out that commission.
The “Gift Trust Fund”
See Appendix B for the policies under which the “Gift Trust Fund” was established. Note especially the prudence involved in converting non-recurring income into an income stream for the Synod’s program by a controlled payout. Besides, the fund served as a reserve for any economic downturns and other unexpected events that might adversely affect the economy or the income of the Synod.
The SC apparently ignored the good counsel that it did receive. (See Appendix E.) Note that three people who were financial advisors (at the time when the spend down was in progress) showed the seriousness of their objections by resigning, rather than participating in such an imprudent action.
Anyone who has worked with CPAs must assume that the management letters each year pointed out the imprudence of spending down the non-recurring income for on-going programs. So there is reason to assume that the elected officials had good advice also from the CPAs, but didn’t follow it. This also makes it sound a bit hollow when in 2005 there is an eager desire to hire a good financial manager.
Another part of the imprudence in spending down the gift trust fund involves the fact that during this time period (’96 – ’01) the corps of world missionaries was increased by 19 men (See Appendix D). When it became obvious that the non-recurring funds could only sustain the budget inflated with non-recurring funds for a year or two, there was a cutback in world missionaries, but not quite to the level of the early ‘90’s. So while other divisions of the Synod had budget cuts to levels CONSIDERABLY BELOW pre-1996 levels, World Mission was not even cut TO 1996. (See Appendix F.)
This is not (repeat: NOT) a diatribe against World Missions—it is a statement of reality about the imprudence of starting long term programs with non-recurring funds. The World Mission program will truly be healthy when a sound infrastructure supports it.
Another bit of history: When the WELS first ventured into world missions in the 1950’s careful efforts were undertaken to get the entire Synod behind the move. When the program was adopted by the Synod, the membership rose to the occasion and at the time sent almost 20% of their total contributions to the Synod (Compare that with the current 7.33% in 2005. See Appendix G). Therefore the expanded program was possible. Similar efforts were made in the ‘60‘s and 70’s as people rallied round the idea of getting out the Word after the suspension of fellowship issues had been addressed in 1961.
As stated previously, God has made the world our field for missions. God has also supplied us with specific, finite resources, so that we are only able to reach specific, limited areas of our world. World Missions has a vital role in supporting the infrastructure. Instead of saying, we have started a mission and now we expect our members to support it, World Missions has to be in the forefront of appealing to members about the need of those in areas of the world where no gospel is being preached and in building the infrastructure. In other words, World Missions is a vital part of raising the whole budget, including the infrastructure that supports the whole Synod. That is difficult, patience-testing activity. It doesn’t have a lot of pizzazz, but it builds soundly as it appeals to the members for the CMO which is a vital engine in the Synod’s work.
The Board For Ministerial Education (BME)
A Bit of History
Historically, the principle under which the WELS operated its ministerial schools for many years might be expressed in the following words: When parents are willing to offer their children (a God-given gift that is far more precious than money) to the church, the members of the Synod will only require the parents to provide the food, shelter, and other personal needs. The WELS was willing to supply most of the facility and the staff. Though there were adaptations along the way and there is clearly legitimate debate about what belongs in each category, the system has served the Synod well. Another aspect of the proportion paid by parents/students is the relative ability of the students to earn money as they grow older.
The function of the BME in providing well-qualified church workers for all churches has been considered vital—so vital that during the Great Depression the schools were maintained even when there were payless paydays and when one spring only one seminary graduate was assigned a call. Going back even further, having a qualified ministerium led all three constituent Synods (Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan synods) of the WELS to start there own seminaries. In other words worker training was considered as infrastructure or foundation. Infrastructure is not glamorous, but it is vital. (A person who wants to expand his house better be sure the water/sewer service, the electrical service and the gas service are adequate. A business man must provide adequate instruction to all personnel so that they can do their jobs efficiently and well.)
That emphasis was also evident in the Synodical budgets from 1962 to 1987. Over those 25 years between 35% and 40% of the budget was assigned to the BME. During that time the Home Mission program completed the spread throughout the U.S. The World Mission program was growing at a measured pace. Howeever, in 1988 World Mission and Other made considerable jumps and have been increasing ever since. The expansion of Wrold Mission and Other has been accomplished at the expense of the infrastructure.
Spenders are often very impatient with infrastructure, as has been evident in the timeframe being discussed here. (Financial conservatives can also distort, of course. For example, I have heard of a business that had nine CPA’s crunching numbers and only one salesman. The company failed under the burden of excessive infrastructure. I have also heard of businesses that ignored the number crunching and soon had the IRS on their back.)
When the training begins in 9th grade, I think it is pretty terrific that 40-50% of the graduates continue toward full-time ministry. For those who do not continue, we can note that in spite of appropriate recruitment efforts the Lord has not chosen to lead them in that direction. It is true that the education of the ones who do not continue may have been a bargain, but most of them more than make up for those dollar costs in the service that they bring through personal service and through their influence in the church at large.
The BME Has Borne a Disproportionately Large Burden of the Cutbacks
· OVERVIEW: The Board for Ministerial Education (BME) bore a disproportionately large proportion of the cutbacks.
1. The budget cutting for the BME was approximately doubled in percentage because the money that parents/students paid for tuition/fees was commingled with CMO
2. The funds that had been given directly to the schools and were therefore in the Revolving Funds, were used to balance the budget over the last couple of years. After $20,000,000+ of these non-recurring funds was spent, it has been suggested that the schools should solicit a $300,000,000 trust fund to keep themselves going. (Did you notice the words: “Keep themselves going.”)
Commingling Funds
The money parents/students provide for education is really ‘designated money.’ They have the right to expect that 100% of it will be used for their schooling. Over clearly expressed objections, the budgeting process was distorted when the money that parents/students provided in the various charges at the schools was equated with the CMO, and other income categories. By commingling such designated money with budgetary funds the SC was highly imprudent. To equate those funds with CMO funds is to take those funds and subject them to the same percentages as other budgetary funds. The net result was that when the budget crunch first hit, the schools were cut back at a much faster rate than the other divisions of the Synod. Especially in a budget cut, the money that people thought they were paying for education was being diverted to pay for other divisions of the WELS. As far as the BME was concerned, its budget was being cut at a rate twice as high as other divisions.
An illustration of the consequences of the commingling of funds from the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position for June 20, 2001 (2002 RTTTD p. 105): (The figures show what would have happened in 2001.)
COMMINGLED NET COST TO BUDGET
Expenditures, BME $30,581,481 Expenditure, BME $30,581,481
Subtract tuition and fees ($13,507,707)
Subtract Activity fees1 ($2,000,000)
Net cost $30,581,481 Net cost $15,073,774
x 25% x 25%
Budget cut at 25% 2$7,645,370 Budget cut at 25% 23,768,443
1 Since I know of nothing outside of the BME that has “activity fees,” I have assigned $2 million here of the $14+ million reported for “Activity Fees And Retail Sales.”
2 In this illustration the difference between $7.6 million and $3.7 million is the distortion that would have occurred because of imprudently commingling tuition with CMO.
As shown in the chart, when the budget cuts were applied, a highly disproportionate reduction in the support provided to the Synodical schools occurred. Some of the budget shortfall was covered by increasing tuition and fees. As a result parents were expected, not only to offer their children for strong encouragement toward full-time ministry, but also to increase payments to the schools sharply. Many apparently could not afford the increases. Enrollments have dropped. The dropping enrollment adversely impacted the funding of the school even further. Since the decreased enrollment was caused ultimately by the imprudent use of non-recurring funds, as explained above, it is disingenuous to now fault the schools for the drop and therefore withdraw even more support.
The revolving funds, especially of WLS and MLC, were used to support the budget
After the predicted drop in enrollment became reality, the SC turned to another direction. The schools of the BME (especially WLS and MLC) had over the years received donations that weren’t specifically designated. These non-recurring funds were next used to shore up the Synod’s budget. The amounts that were taken from these non-recurring funds crept up from about $4 million to $13 million. Details are in Appendix C. The term to accomplish this transfer of funds is “reclassification.” The mechanism that makes it difficult to follow this reclassification (which was done openly in the 2003 report) is that the amount from income used for BME is reported in the Operating Budget. That amount plus the amounted used from non-recurring funds is reported as the total expenditure for BME in the report of Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. (See Appendix C.)
One solution that has been put forward to the BME is that, even though the Synod has not even been able to raise the $5-$10 million per year that would truly balance the budget, the schools should go out and get $300 million as a trust fund to support the schools. HOW STRANGE! And they are to do this when more that $20 million of the schools’ gifts funds have already been used to balance the Synod’s budget.
In November after approving a recommendation to defund the prep schools within two years, the SC has directed the Synod’s president to explore alternate methods of recruiting full-time workers.(See the WELS website, Synodical Council, Executive Summary for November 3-4, 2006). HOW STRANGE! Shut down the system that has served us well and ONLY THEN explore alternatives. Stop the funding of the agency that recruits 56% of our pastors BEFORE research is done on how an adequate number of pastors and teachers will be recruited. Another strange thing is that the issue is described as “the schools are $2-$4 million short” in the SC executive summary, NOT that the Synod is $2-$4 million short.
Every Congregation in the Synod Has a Stake in the Decisions About the Worker Training Schools
The BME monitors an education system that has over the years provided our congregation with well-trained workers. Committed to and knowledgeable about the Bible, language skills in the Biblical languages as well as the languages of church history, language skills to communicate the Gospel—These are elements of the overarching training that cover the history, science, world history, computer skills and other assorted courses. How thankful we should be for the pastors, teachers and lay ministers. To be sure, there is an occasional misfit in the ministry.
Aside from the financial issues, a vital feature of the system involves the efforts at recruitment. In the volatile adolescent years, as each day may bring a new choice of vocation, it is really helpful to keep the Lord’s view of full-time service to the church before the students. In this way the prep school provide 56% of our pastoral candidates and 33% of our teacher candidates. Much more data in support of this point of view is in the 2005 PROCEEDINGS in the PSSC-2 report.
The SC, instead of owning up to the negative ramifications caused by a) using non-recurring income to start on-going programs, and b) spending down all of the reserves, and c) using uneven reduction in the budget for the various divisions of the Synod, has made decisions that have impacted the BME especially hard—the recommendation is that a very significant element of the BME is to be defunded!
Some projections compel us to ask the question: “Can MLC, our Synod’s college, be far behind?”
Can we ignore the schools in the U.S. that had to find their own funding and ended up as wholly secular schools (e.g. Harvard)? Can we ignore the experience that a Baptist church that defunded its college is going through, as it is trying to get the college again to present acceptable doctrine?
Communication
Obviously the means of communication can be improved, especially using advances in technology.
But another aspect of communication is involved. I have observed over several years, as I traveled around the Synod for LACE, that there has been a growing split between “us” and “them.” When people say: “What did they do in Milwaukee now?” they are not asking for information; they are expressing concern about some aspect of the direction of the Synod. In other words, people are receiving communication quite well, but they don’t agree with what they are hearing.
I suggest that the same conclusion could logically be drawn, when during the ‘90’s total contributions in congregations increased by an average of 6.6%. However, the increase in CMO contributions has only averaged 1.17% during the ‘90’s. I suggest that this was a vote of “no confidence” for the direction the SC was leading, rather than that pastors and members are losing sight of the great commission. (See Appendix G.)
When people began to realize some of the serious problems of the Synod, there was a notable increase in 2003; but note that the following year a sizable portion of the gain was lost. Whatever communication occurred in 2003 didn’t have a lot of “sticking power.” Why?
Priorities
The priorities of the Synod ARE the priorities of the SC. This is the normal relationship between any sub-unit and its legislative group. (See Appendix F.)
Yet the SC set its own priorities as it spent non-recurring funds to start on-going programs in world mission without making full disclosure to the Synod. (Non-recurring funds were assigned to other divisions of the Synod also. The central issue is the imprudent use of non-recurring funds.)
The SC set its own priorities through the mechanism of commingling tuition and fees with CMO, because this protected the mission program from the consequences of the spend down in non-recurring funds.
The 2005 convention has several very explicit resolutions that legislate that funding for the prep schools should be continued, protected and increased. Yet the SC has indicated its willingness to let the prep schools be defunded in the next two years, rather than spread the shortfalls over the entire program of the Synod. Another aspect of this is in the wording that the BME is short $2-$4 million. The priorities set by the 2005 convention clearly imply that it is the Synod that is $2-$4 million short.
It would seem that it is time for the Synod to reassert its prerogative of setting priorities.
Area Lutheran High School (ALHS) vs. Prep School
About 1965 I first heard the claim that ALHS could supply the full-time workers. What Pres. Carl Lawrenz (WLS) said then still holds true: “The ALHS’s have good intentions, but the intentions have not become reality.” In the years that followed, a number of the language requirements were relaxed, as an accommodation to the high schools. An ALHS student no longer has to put in extra hours (or a year) to complete the course at MLC. Yet the recruitment, which has grown from 2/3 students to 14 over the years, is not sufficient for replacing workers in Synod, much less expansion.
The purpose of the high school and purpose of the prep school is distinct and different. A high school is supported by an association of congregations in a local region for the purpose of providing spiritual guidance throughout the high school years as the students prepare themselves for the full range of occupational possibilities. A prep school has as its central focus the preparation of future church workers in our Synod by providing a pre-college course with special emphasis on knowledge and skills that will serve in the ministry.
The parents of the high schooler can continue to encourage their children to prepare for the vocation with the best income available for his talents. The parent of the prep schooler implicitly agrees to having his child encouraged toward the ministry in many ways. Obviously many of these parents would be delighted if their child continues on to the public ministry. In a few cases students may feel that they have been pressured to enter the public ministry.
Currently 56% of the freshman pastor track students at MLC come from the Prep Schools (28 out of 50). Area High Schools produce 28% (14 out of 50). For the teacher track at MLC Area High school produce 33.3%; Prep School produce 33.3%; and other sources produce 33.3%.
Food for thought: Each year as 45 pastors at ALHS carry out their call, 14 students are enlisted to replace them. Each year at prep schools 24 pastors are involved in recruiting 28 students.
The prep schools are in a specific locality and the local people do use them as high schools. This is really a mutual back-scratching, as I see it. The money paid for tuition really helps to reduce the cost to the Synod in a large measure (e.g. 1/25 of a classroom). More important, some of those students are recruited for the ministry, so the Synod gains. As an example, St. Paul’s in Saginaw has over the years offered over 100 students to the church for public ministry. (I have no idea how this compares with Watertown or New Ulm.) Obviously church workers that serve at MLS provided some of those children. But the Synod has benefited from a sizable number of additional workers that St. Paul’s did not use up in its own ministry.
The prep schools also serve the WELS churches that are not within commuting distance of an ALHS. Since the prep schools provide the majority of those going on to the ministry, it would be interesting to investigate what percentage of our people in public ministry originally comes from areas where there was no high school during their teenage years. (Other interesting data is the MLS website.) By the way, I have some experience in dealing with the difficulties that arise when parents try to board their children in private homes. It is a solution with many difficulties.
I personally feel that there is an inherent unfairness in comparing the costs of our college students with the costs of students in a public university. Some of the graduates will be assigned to mission congregations or to schools whose pay scale is considerably below the local public school. Should our students be saddled with the same debt as a graduating MBA or public school teacher? Perhaps the raises in tuition should be linked in some way to the amount that the Synod is paying its missionaries.
Fragmentation
The constitution of the WELS has included functions that are assigned to the Synod. Those functions can be summarized as: training church workers, missions, publications and counseling. Though members of Synod have always been able to send support directly to ministries that especially interested them, it certainly is counter-productive for the administration of the Synod itself to be encouraging a fragmentary support of programs that the Synod has undertaken. As one person said to me: “Every member of Synod has a vital interest in the recruitment that goes on at the prep schools, the colleges and the seminary. How can I decide to support one rather than the other?” The same principle also applies to every single mission, whether home or world. The reality is that the support of the Synod’s total program suffers when one program is pitted against another and people get multiple appeals for donations.
In a Synod our churches join together to carry on that part of the Lord’s work that we can not carry out as individual congregations or smaller groups of congregations. The strength is in the unified effort. Another strength is that appropriate criteria can be assigned to the various individuals units. How easily a charismatic person can attract attention to a ministry that to most others appears to be of secondary importance.
Perhaps the ancient fable would apply here. The father gave each of his sons two lengths of tree branches. First, he told each of them to take one of the branches and break it. Each of the sons was able to do that easily. Then he told them to tie all of the remaining branches together. Then he directed each of them to try to break that bundle. None of them could break the bundle of branches.
While the current financial situation would seem to be solved, if the Synod would shuck its responsibility for the schools, it would seem to me that the far better solution is to focus on getting us all to pull in the same direction again. To accomplish such a goal now will have to start with establishing and communicating a clear record of a financially sound approach to the whole work of the Synod.
Reorganization
Businesses can be run from the top down, i.e., decisions are made at the top. The control the employer has on the employment of the employees leads to success of this method. In a church, however, decisions at the top have no compelling force for the constituency of the church. For example, the world mission board can start a new mission before enlisting the support of the constituency of the Synod, but there is no way to compel the constituency to make the necessary offerings. The data given above shows that very clearly as there was no support from the constituency of the Synod for the missions started with non-recurring funds..
A bit of history: It took three conventions for the WELS to start the mission in Rhodesia (Zambia). When it was approved in the ‘50’s, the congregations sent almost 20% of the total contributions in the congregations to the Synod. (Compare that with the current 7+% of total contributions that are currently being forwarded to the Synod. See Appendix G.). It just might be worth the effort (and frustration) to be less efficient, but be enlisting participation at all levels of the Synod.
Therefore the pleas for centralization based on greater efficiency of a top-down organization are self-defeating, because they do not enlist the commitment of the constituency. The more we become centralized, i.e., the more we are being told from “Milwaukee” what we ought to be doing, the less ownership the pastors and people of the Synod feel.
Over a number of years the WELS constitution has been changed in the direction of more centralization. The appeal is made to “efficiency” and “ability to react quickly.”
I can sympathize with the Synodical Council as it has to determine both the revenues and the expenditures. How easy it is to say, “The revenues won’t cover that, but we have these non-recurring funds. So we will approve the expenditure.” The prudence of having checks and balances is well established. It would seem that we need a system that has more checks and balances. (See the proposed Resolution)
If you have reached this point and your head is spinning, you are welcome to turn to the “Parable” that is in Appendix H, which attempts to present the issues in every day terms.
What Lies Ahead?
Everything lies in the direction and course along which the Lord will lead us.
As I discussed this with a person who had experience as a loan office in a bank, he noted that he would have real difficulty approving a loan to WELS. (He actually used the term ‘functionally bankrupt,’ which means that imprudent management by spending down non-recurring income has reached a point that vital programs are about to be curtailed.) Since that conversation jolted me to attention, I started to explore in my mind where we should go from here.
As we under God seek to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, I would suggest that we can expect a progression similar to the progression that occurred in the Pacific Theater during WWII.
The progression was defined in the four steps:
· DEFENSE/ defense – with a navy decimated at Pearl Harbor, we had to try to contain Japan
· Defense/ Offense – Counterattacks were begun at the farthest extensions of the Japanese conquests.
· Offense/ Defense – More aggressive attacks as our power mounted, moving closer and closer to Japan
· Offense/ OFFENSE – The circle of steel tightened and tightened.
I suggest that our planning will do best by following a model like this:
· DEFENSE/ defense – Get BME, World and Home Missions stabilized; Build some prudent reserves.
· Defense/Offense – Be sure the recruitment is again in place and begin to expand home missions
· Offense/ Defense – While nurturing the BME, we can again turn some attention to world missions
· OFFENSE/ Offense – In all areas the Synod is aggressively carrying out its mandate.
The PROPOSALS that follow now are focused only on “DEFENSE/ defense,” since that must be successfully accomplished before we can move to the next level.
PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
I. Elections We have every right as members of the Synod to vote for a different direction. Elections can provide the change. The following offices are up for election:
President 2nd Vice President
Synodical Council — Pastor World Missions, chairman
Home Mission, chairman World Mission, layman
Board for Parish Service, chmn Commission on evangelism, chmn
· Others that might be investigated: World Mission administrative committee members.
Some general thoughts:
· Since the buck stops at the top with the elected officials, I recommend that the delegates to the Synod Convention need to elect officials whose priorities more accurately reflect a desirable balance between the divisions of the Synod. (See Appendix I, Constitution, Article IV Object.)
· Emergency approaches are necessary NOW!
· The reserves HAVE BEEN SPENT.
· Newly elected officials need accept the responsibility for laying before the members of Synod the potential there is for doing great things for the Lord, if we indeed “walk together” in supporting the Synod in the programs approved by the convention.
II. The Core Work of the Synod
In the crisis that has been brought on by imprudent actions listed above, we need to define our core work in the very narrowest way. I suggest that the core work of the Synod be defined as 1) those activities which train the future workers until they are installed in a call and 2) those activities which actually bring people from darkness to light, from death to life. 3) Publishing is left to NPH for now.
Consequently, for example, holding meetings about evangelism is not part of the narrow definition of core work. Further, it might even be appropriate to defund the full-time office of Vice President. Instead of centralizing and hiring additional staff, we should be expanding the services that are provided by volunteers.
III. Division of Resources
Since neither congregations, nor home missions, nor world missions can carry out their work without workers, the BME should be considered part of the infrastructure of the Synod. Every congregation world-wide has a vital interest in the workers recruited and trained by the BME.
Therefore, instead of the 25-25-25-25% model for the division of resources that has been recently adopted by the SC, I suggest that a pyramid model is far more appropriate.
Funding decisions would be made from the bottom up. Thus the supporting infrastructure receives priority over expansion of program. This does require that we support the infrastructure of our Synodical program, SO THAT WE CAN ALSO AGGRESSIVELY BUT PRUDENTLY CARRY OUT THE OUTREACH RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE BEFORE THE LORD.
It therefore seems prudent to me to work our way back to the priorities that were in place from 1962 to 1987 (Ask President Prange of MLS for his graph that shows budget percentages during those years.) During that time BME received between 35% and 40% of the Operating Budget. Until viable, proven alternate methods of recruiting and training pastors, teachers, and lay ministers, are available, the infrastructure must be maintained.
The stylized triangle that follows on the next page illustrates this approach.
Scope of work
Christ defined the whole world as our field of labor. However, by the resources that he provides Christ also defines the extent to which any particular group can do world-wide missions.
A corollary: Because of the sinfulness of all the members of the Synod we probably never reach the potential that would properly reflect our Lord’s generosity to us.
A PYRAMID FOR SOUND GROWTH
Principle: Expansion can be soundly built only on a sound infrastructure.
Observation: This triangle is focused on the function of the Synod’s Operating Budget.
1. When many people want to carry out a joint program, sound administration is necessary. Therefore administration is a part of the infrastructure. Ideally the least administration possible is desirable.
2. In a church, since proclaiming and teaching the gospel are the central function for the great commission, a well-trained corps of workers is necessary. Therefore the BME is part of the infrastructure
3. The congregations of the Synod, for which the BME also prepares workers, can also be considered a part of the infrastructure of the Synod, for it is the resources that they provide which support the work that the Synod undertakes. Note that the workers for specialized ministries are also supplied by the BME. The BME also provides the workers both for Home Missions and World Missions.
4. Home Missions is in one sense expansion and in another infrastructure. They are expansion in the sense that they are part of any increase in membership. As the Home Missions mature in their financial stewardship they become part of the infrastructure for World Missions.
5. In World Missions the expansion into the whole world is realized in the measure that the Lord provides the resources.
Addressing the immediate budget crisis, I suggest either Resolution 1 OR Resolution 2:
Resolution 1:
WHEREAS 1) defunding the prep schools has far-reaching, serious consequences because no adequate alternative has been established to recruit and train workers, and
WHEREAS 2) the fine intentions of ALHSs are to be commended and we gladly note the workers they have recruited, yet we also note that their efforts and their purpose have not to this point adequately addressed the needs of the Synod, particularly in regard to recruiting pastor track students , and
WHEREAS 3) the current financial situation of our Synod could legitimately be labeled a crisis, which deserves emergency action, and
WHEREAS 4) reserve funds have already been expended and there is no “magic bullet” that can restore fiscal integrity, and
WHEREAS 5) we agree in the priorities in the triangle approach to setting budget priorities, and
WHEREAS 6) when the hard realities require manpower cuts, we endorse the narrow definition of the core work of the Synod, and
WHEREAS 7) although we acknowledge the commendable service to the Lord that is provided by para-church organizations, we need to keep clear for ourselves and our members that the work of the Synod has a very high priority just because the work of the Synod is defined under the Great Commission as the work that individual congregations or smaller congregational associations can not do on there own; and
WHEREAS 8) the program of the Synod would not be in crisis, if 15% of total contributions were being sent to the Synod, as has been done in the past; and
WHEREAS 9) it may be prudent for us to strive for such a 15% proportion for CMO; and
WHEREAS 10) it is disturbing that the drop in percentage forwarded to the Synod occurred during one of the most prosperous decades in the history of the U.S.A., and
WHEREAS 11) every effort should be expended so that the gains we have made in missions worldwide can be maintained, even though they may have been started by the imprudent use of non-recurring funds, and
WHEREAS 12) we need constantly to ask ourselves, “Has our love for the Lord grown lukewarm?” (Cf. the letter to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3), and
WHEREAS 13) the Lord will both lead and empower our Synod according to his will,
THEEFORE BE IT RESOLVED 1) that the current situation be declared an emergency, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 2) that we authorize the administration to borrow up to $6,000,000 to fund the ’07-’08 budget; (NOTE: The amount here is to be determined by expert advice at the Synod convention), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 3) that all divisions of the Synod evaluate their budgets according to the narrow definition of core work, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 4) that the convention authorize a special collection of $26,000,000, which shall be designated a) first to repay any borrowing authorized in Resolution 2) above and b) to reestablish the gift trust fund both for reserve and for investment income; (Personal note: I would really like to recommend $66,000,000, but I believe in the reality of the possible), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 5) serious efforts be made to determine what has caused the decline in support of the Synod (apathy, disagreement with direction of Synod, general anti-establishment sentiment fostered in the 1970’s, confusion between Synod and para-church organizations, etc.), and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED 6) that serious efforts be made to get everyone in Synod to recognize and support the overarching purpose of the Synod, as well as, the priorities, and the general direction of the Synod, so that we gladly aspire to emulate the zeal of those who have gone before us in their support of the Synod’s program.
Resolution 2:
WHEREAS 1) we agree with the approach used during the depression that ministerial education is an absolutely essential element of the Synod’s work, and
WHEREAS 2) the proposed crisis management suggestions of the previous Resolution may not be adequate (or may be rejected by the Synod), and
WHEREAS 3) the imprudent actions of the past years in using up all reserves may make extreme actions necessary to avoid seriously harming the Synod’s work, and
WHEREAS 4) we acknowledge that this resolution will present an extremely unpleasant and undesirable solution. and
WHEREAS 5) the budget of Synod is “labor intensive,” i.e., a large percentage of the budget is expended for salaries, and
WHEREAS 6) it is only the urgency of the situation that compels us to consider putting a very onerous burden on the called workers, while efforts are made to enlist increased support from the constituency of the Synod (for example, $1.00 per Sunday per communicant member),
THEEFORE BE IT RESOLVED 1) that the budget provide at least the necessary funds to the BME to maintain the schools at current levels, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 2) that, if necessary to accomplish Resolution #1, the SC plan a budget in which salaries of Synodical paid workers be reduced in an amount that guarantees the survival of the ministerial education system as now constituted, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 3) that an effort be made to minimize the impact on the lowest paid levels of workers by assigning an incremental percentage to each higher pay level (e.g. 5% per level), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 4) that the SC determine whether payless days, partial pay paydays, or a reduced salary over the course of a year minimizes the impact, and
AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED 5) that every effort be made to inform the members of the Synod of the burden that we have placed on our called workers by this decision so that they can act in Christian love to alleviate the burden.
I also suggest
WHEREAS 1) concentrating a) the responsibility for fiscal soundness and b) the decisions about program budgets into one group (i.e. the SC) has not served us well (See page 9 “Reorganization”), and
WHEREAS 2) assigning the responsibility for fiscal integrity to the Board of Trustees and the responsibility for program development Coordinating Council served the WELS well, and
WHEREAS 3) a system with checks and balances served our Synod well during the time that we did have a significant expansion both in home missions and in world missions during the mid-20th century,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED 1) that the President be directed to formulate a proposal for constitutional change that would reinstitute such checks and balances, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 2) that the proposal be submitted to the districts for debate and reaction in 2008, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 3) that such a proposal be presented to the 2009 convention after the reactions of the districts have been gathered and included in the presentation to the convention in 2009, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED 4) that in the meantime the SC must submit its estimate of income to the COP, which has the responsibility for funding the budget, and the SC must get approval of the COP of the estimate of income BEFORE proceeding to develop the budget.
The resolutions included here can only address the immediate emergency situation. Please, review the section “What lies ahead?” on page 10 for a stylized outline for getting the Synod’s financial house in order, so that we can be a better instrument in carrying out the Lord’s Great Commission.
APPENDIX A
TIMELINE ON SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS
Year Issues and CommentsStatements in quotes are taken from Appendix B and C and occurred either in a BORAM, a RTTTD or a PROCEEDINGS. Follow the quotations in Appendix B and C according to the matching year.Note: The change in the number of World missionaries is intended only to illustrate that the non-recurring funds were used to start on-going programs, which could not be sustained by non-recurring funds. But I did note that, while the budgets of other divisions were definitely cut World Missions is not cut below the ‘96-‘97 levels. Traceable Non-recurring funds USED IN THE BUDGET World Mission Pastors (See note)
From 1950 to 1995 the world mission corps grew from a few in the Apache mission in 1950 to 54—slightly better than one a year. During this same period the communicant membership of the Synod grew from 214,000+ to 315,000+ to support that expansion
Jul-95 Gift Trust Fund: “a large annual gift to the Synod. The most recent gift was $5 million. Its February 28, 1995 fund balance was $16.4 million.” According to policy $5,240,000 was distributed to budget. 54
Jul-96 According to policy $6,074,000 was distributed to budgetBy June 30, 1996 $1.7 million of Restricted Funds (non-recurring funds) had been assigned to Russia and Bulgaria $ 1,698,516 52
Jul-97 According to policy $5,283,000 was distributed to budget 61
Jul-98 “$3.4 million gift” TO Gift Trust Fund 69
Jul-99 “gift was $5 million June 20,1999, had net assets of $21.7 million.” $ 4,500,000 70
Jul-00 “The last gift was $2.5 million, received in August 2000.” $ 6,800,000 74
Jul-01 At June 30, 2001 net asets were $8.1 million. $ 6,800,000 71
Jul-02 The assets are earning interest so the total spend down of the gift trust fund from fiscal ‘99 to fiscal ‘03 totals $23.3 million. $ 4,300,000 71
Meanwhile the Revolving Fund was also being spent down. An effort to show some of the details is in Appendix C. My comments at the beginning of Appendix C points out that the Revolving Funds started with assets of $63.9 million in 1999, and were spent down to $35.4 million by June 20, 2003. Rather than try to determine exact amounts for each year, I am splitting $28.5 million equally between 2002, 2003, and 2004 $ 9,500,000
Jul-03 “The (Gift Trust) fund is now totally exhausted” $ 900,000 59
In May of ‘03 recently hired financial managers reported that an error had been made: $8.1 million (later reported as $7 million) had already been borrowed against reserved funds, had already been spent and therefore could not be reborrowed. It was also pointed out that a $1.5 overspending of the previous budget had not been accounted for in the budget plan printed in the ‘03 BORAM. This was spent and the resolutions to repay it have not been fully carried out. $ 7,000,000
The spend down of the Revolving Funds $ 9,500,000
Jul-04 The spend down of the Revolving Funds; No report in the RTTTD. $ 9,500,000 57
Jul-05 No report included in either the BORAM or the PROCEEDINGS. 53
Jul-06 Currently under preparation.
Nov-06 The Synodical Council discussed how to assign $5.8 million in non-recurring funds in the budget for 2007 and following. I have chosen to include only: $ 2,000,000
Without being able to pin down every transaction, my intention is only to show that the $60,000,000 on the Precise is probably not an overstatement. Before conceding a lower figure, I would need data from 2004 and 2005.Total: $ 62,498,516
APPENDIX B
THE GIFT TRUST FUND (a.k.a. WELS Gift Fund)
(In the BORAMs and RTTTDs from 1995 to 2004 the purpose and broad policies of the Gift Trust Fund are explained in virtually identical words. I have presented those paragraphs first and have then included several specific paragraphs from different years that show how this cache of non-recurring funds was spent down. PWK)
WELS Gift Fund (From 1999 BORAM p. 104)
Gift funds are a middle ground between placing offerings directly into a fund for current use (like the Operating Fund) and placing them into an endowment fund (like the WELS Endowment Fund). Gift funds can be a “buffer” between “lean” years and “fat” years.
Placing a large gift into the budget has several disadvantages. It can make the financial health appear better than it really is. Resources may be put into ministry work without provision for maintaining it in future years, and other revenue sources may decrease because of a false view that the need for mission dollars is decreased.
Placing a large gift into an endowment fund, with the earnings annually benefiting the Operating Fund, also has several disadvantages. Ministry work is dependent on the amount of earnings generated, and because the principal cannot be used the potential exists that we may accumulate unspendable funds when ministry expansion is needed.
By using the WELS Gift Fund the synod is supporting the work of preaching and teaching and helping others with the confidence that there is a buffer to give us planning time to respond to changes in the size or number of gifts.
Each fiscal year, the trusts transfer 30% of the prior year ending trust principal plus all interest earned during the year to the Budgetary Fund. … In this way gifts are completely utilized over a nine year period.
(So far the general paragraphs.)
Results reported in 1995 BORAM (Page 183):
The WELS Gift Trust Fund supports general Budgetary Fund expenditures. Its February 28,1995 fund balance was $16,458,631. Distributions to the Budgetary Fund during 1994-95 will be $5,240,000. Expected distributions for 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years will be $6,074,000 and $5,283,000, respectively. The WELS Gift Trust Fund has been the beneficiary of a large annual gift to the Synod. The most recent gift was $5,000,000.
Results reported in 1998 RTTTD (Page 161):
The WELS Gift Trust Fund supports general Budgetary Fund expenditures. Its December 31, 1997, net assets total was $19,335,259. Distributions to the Budgetary Fund during 1997-98 are expected to be approximately $9,988,000.
Results reported in 1999 BORAM (Page 104):
The WELS Gift Trust Fund supports general Budgetary Fund expenditures. Its December 31, 1998, net assets were $17.7 million. Distributions to the Budgetary Fund are planned at $6.1 million plus earnings estimated at $1.5 million or about $7.6 million for 1998-99. The expected expenditures for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 fiscal years total $10.3 million and $11.2 million respectively. The WELS Gift Fund has been the beneficiary of a large annual gift to the synod. The most recent gift was $3.4 million.
Results reported in 2000 RTTTD (Page 104):
The WELS Gift Trust Fund supports general Budgetary Fund expenditures. Its June 30.1999, net assets were $21.7 million. Distributions to the Budgetary Fund were $5 million for 1998-99, less than planned at this time last year. The expected distributions for the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 fiscal year total $10.3 million and $11.2 million respectively. The WELS Gift Fund has been the beneficiary of a large annual gift to the synod. The most recent gift was $5 million.
Reported in 2001 PROCEEDINGS under “Budgetary (Operating) Fund” (p. 72)
The increased revenue available in the coming biennium allows for some very limited expansion of our ministry, with plans to continue the transition to an environment of stable-vs-increasing major gifts to WELS, the planned exhaustion of the gift fund (italics mine; this is the first open reference to the spend down of the “rainy day fund. PWK) a more aggressive use of our restricted (revolving) funds, and the continued reexamination of effective methods to achieve the WELS Mission, Objectives, and Vision (MOV).
Results reported in 2001 PROCEEDINGS (p.73)
(The report repeats the policies under which money was transferred to the Budget Fund and continues:) Historical numbers over the past years ranged from about $5 million to about $7 million. In the current biennium we accelerated that to transfer about $10.1 million and $10.5 million from the Gift Trust Fund to the Budget Fund to support planned ministry. (approved transfers by the previous convention were $10.3 million and $11.2 million.)
At June 30, 2001 net assets were $8.1 million. The expected distribution for the 2001-02 and 2002-2003 fiscal years decline to about $4.9 million and $2.9 million, respectively. In the past the WELS Gift Fund had been beneficiary of a large annual gift to the synod. The most recent gift was $2.5 million, received in August 2000. No gifts subsequent to the date are expected. The Synodical Council and your WELS staff began work in the summer of 1999 to help transition the WELS to revised gift giving levels identified at that time, and to a revised giving process identified in the winter of 2000. That work continues today.
Results reported in 2004 RTTTD (Page 95):
The WELS Gift Fund on June 20,1999, had net assets of $21.7 million. Transfers to the Operating Fund were $4.5 million for 1998-99. Transfers for the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 fiscal years were accelerated to $9.8 million and $10.5 million respectively, to support ministry needs. Transfers for fiscal ’02 were $4.3 million and for fiscal ’03 $0.9 million. The last gift was $2.5 million, received in August 2000. The fund is now totally exhausted.
APPENDIX C
REVOLVING FUNDS
(A.K.A. THE GIFT FUNDS, RESTRICTED FUNDS, OR AUXILIARY FUNDS)
(Considerable detail is given below, because there were changes in financial managers and changes in the reports and the reports don’t all have the same closing date. If you are not interested in all the details, the basic thrust of this section is that the Revolving Funds started with assets of $63.9 million in 1999, and they were spent down to $35.4 million by June 20, 2003. No official, public reports on Revolving Funds were made in 2004 and 2005. While those funds were indeed spent for ministry, the inexorable fact is that large amounts of the money were spent trying to recover and get a balanced bndget. PWK)
1998 RTTTD – “Auxiliary Funds” are reported in detail on pages 169-170; “Gift Funds” were reported in the narrative and apparently referred to the “Gift Trust Fund” as detailed in Appendix C.
The 1999 PROCEEDINGS page 64 uses the terminology “Restricted Funds” and “Auxiliary Funds” The distinction between these two funds is reported as:
“Restricted Funds receive special gifts whose use is determined by the donor or the synod. These gifts support some non-budgeted program of the synod such as Administrative services, Committee on Relief, world mission in Russia and Bulgaria, and ministerial education student assistance. In addition, Restricted Funds play an important role for WELS because many transfer dollars to the Budgetary Funds each year to support program expenses. Their use is planned and coordinated by each area of ministry through the Synodical Council. Restricted Funds saw growth during the prior year, growing by a combined $1.5 million since June 30, 1998 to $63.9 million at Dec. 31, 1999.
Auxiliary Funds account for separate operations that generally have their own sources of income and are self-supporting. They are usually programs of a larger scale such as the Central Africa Medical Mission and Mass Media Ministry. The Christ Light curriculum is funded through the Publications Coordination Fund, which is an auxiliary fund. Collectively, Auxiliary Funds had net assets totaling $4 million at June 30. 1999, a decrese of $0.8 million over June 30, 1998, balance of $4.8 million.
The 2000 RTTTD uses the same general description of the two funds and reports the following results on page 104:
Restricted funds saw use during the prior year. Net assets decreased by a combined $2.6 million since Dec. 31 1998, to $56.4 million at Dec. 31. 1999.
Collectively, Auxiliary Funds had net assets totaling $3.9 million at Dec. 31, 1999, a use or decrease of $0.7 million over the Dec. 31 1998 balance of $4.5 million.
The 2001 PROCEEDINGS uses the same general description of the Restricted (Revolving) Fund and reports the following results on page 72:
Restricted Funds saw heavy use during the prior 12 months, decreasing by $5.2 million since June 20, 2000 to $52.2 million at June 30,2001. Details are in Appendix 1 (Of the proceedings PWK). (Comment: The “Revolving Fund – Statement of Activities on page 89 reports the $5.2 million draw down on the fund; But note that the report for June 30, 2000 reports a $10.5 million draw down, which is significantly more than the $5.2 million reported in the previous paragraph. PWK)
Auxiliary Funds are now reported as part of the Restricted (Revolving) Funds…Collectively, the old Auxiliary Funds category have net assets totaling about $4 million at June 30,2001. Reporting frequency increases to monthly when we include them with the Restricted (Revolving) Funds.
The 2002 RTTTD uses the same general description of the Revolving Funds and reports the following results on page 101:
Revolving funds saw heavy use during the eight months between July 1, 2001 and Feb. 28, 2002, decreasing about $3 million. See more details and a summary for the quarter ended Dec. 31. 2001, in Appendix 1 (p. 118).
Note: a) The 2002 RTTTD is the last of the reports to the Synod that includes the detail on the Revolving Funds. One explanation is that there was an effort to save printing costs. b) On page 105 a new term is introduced: “reclassification.” Please, note that a line is added to Support and Revenue – “Net Assets Released From Restrictions.” Such a term probably includes both the normal transfers plus the money that was a spend-down of the Revolving Funds. c) Even with the inclusion of $13 million in monies released from classification, there was overspending of $2.5 million. d) On page 106 similar comments can be made about the financial statement for June 30, 2000. The numbers are $12.7 million in released funds and $5.2 million in overspending. PWK)
The 2003 BORAM uses the same general description of the Revolving Funds and reports the following results on page 100:
Revolving funds (excluding the four ministerial education schools) saw income during fiscal year 2002 of $12.6 million and expense of $20 million, shrinking by $7.2 million to 44.6 million at June 30, 2002. Including the four schools, we see WELS receiving about $23 million and $20 million during the next two years into revolving funds, and spending about $23 million in each of the next two years. More funds were included in the decision packaging analysis this year, including the revolving funds of the four ministerial education schools.
(NOTE: a) The last sentence of the report seems harmless enough. But by turning to pages 106-7 the implications of this sentence are shown in the term “reclassification.” Thus on the line item Ministerial Education Ministry—Special Funding under columns 5 & 6 the monies to be reclassified are listed. One is the fees received at the schools (4.9 million for ’03-‘04). The other (7.6 million, some of which may have been earnings) must be non-recurring funds from the revolving funds. The non-recurring figure for’04-’05 was $5.5 million. b)The WELS Gift Fund has resurfaced again in the report including several paragraphs about the efforts that were made to encourage donations to cover the budget shortfalls caused by the spend down of non-recurring funds. PWK)
The 2004 RTTTD reports the following on Restricted Funds (Revolving Funds) on page 94:
(After listing the activities that the Restricted Funds support, including some that were formerly in the budget – e.g. Evangelism; Youth Discipleship the reports states:) – Restricted Funds (excluding the four schools) saw income during fiscal year ’03 of $12.7 million, and expense of $21.9 million, shrinking by $9.2 million to $35.4 million at June 30. 2003, as more restricted funds were used for planned ministry. Including the four schools, WELS is expected to receive about $23 million and $20 million during the next two years into restricted funds and spend about $23 million in each of the next two years. More funds were included in the decision packaging analysis this year, including the restricted funds of the four ministerial educations schools.
(NOTE: The use of non-recurring money from the Revolving Funds is presented again in a simple sentence. The amounts must be determined by finding the difference between the figure reported on page 101 (Revenue and Expenditure) and page 97 (Consolidated Statement of Activities). Thus for Ministerial Education in 2002 page 101 reports $21.1 million provided by the Operating Budget but Page 97 reports $29.4 million in expenditures—another $8 million in non-recurring income spent. The figures for 2003 are $20.8 and $34.4 or $13 million in non-recurring income spent. PWK)
The 2005 BORAM makes no report about the Restricted (Revolving) Funds or the WELS Gift Fund nor is there adequate data to compare the Operating Fund with the Consolidated Statement of Activities.
The 2005 PROCEEDINGS also makes no report about the Restricted (Revolving) Funds or the WELS Gift Fund nor is there adequate data to compare the Operating Fund with the Consolidated Statement of Activities.
APPENDIX D—World Missioanries
The following information was gathered from the Statistical Report of the Wisconsin Evangelical Synod for the years indicated. The reports gives an end of the year number (12/31). There are also about 17-19 teacher-trained workers in World Mission. This Appendix tracks the number of pastor that were serving in each of the years in a Foreign Mission field.
Please, note the sudden increase between 1996 and 1999 and the continued higher level till 2002.
1985 42 1995 54
1986 40 1996 52
1987 44 1997 61
1988 45 1998 69
1989 45 1999 70
1990 50 2000 74
1991 54 2001 71
1992 57 2002 71
1993 58 2003 59
1994 58 2004 57
2005 53
As a reference point the LC-MS has 369 called workers in foreign missions (they do not list teachers separately). The LC-MS claims a membership of 2.5 million. For comparison purposes an interesting exercise is to compute the number of members of each Synod that is required to support each worker. (The membership for WELS is 300,000+.
Did the Synod in convention authorize the increase in missionaries for the years that are highlighted?
APPENDIX E—Maaterials from a Letter Sent to 2003 Convention Delegates
(Note: The materials in this Appendix were prepared by Cal Patterson, chief financial officer prior to 1992, who resigned in objection to some of the financial policies that were being undertaken in the Synod. These pages are a public document because he distributed these pages to the delegates prior to the 2003 convention. Many statements are prophetic. His emotions do show
Paul W. Kuske 12/15/06)
Re: What went wrong in WELS?
We have been shocked and saddened with the events that have become public in the last eight months at the Synod level. These issues are to be discussed at this summer Synod convention. You as a delegate to that convention will have some weighty matters to consider.
You are to get reports at the convention that are intended to give you more information on what went wrong in WELS. Attached to this email is the assessment of a former chief financial officer and an appeal to the current Synod president for your consideration before you get to Watertown.
These documents are being distributed for two reasons. To provide information that is not readily available and to ask that you prayerfully consider the leadership issues facing this church body.
Are we going in the right direction?
Do we have leaders to take us in that direction?
You will have the awesome responsibility on the first day of the convention to nominate those you believe would serve us best in the next four years. Take this responsibility to heart, pray, discuss this issue with those you represent. The decision you make on the first day of the convention will be one of great importance to the organization.
Thanks for taking time to consider this issue. If your email does not support attachments, email me at cjpatter@execpc.,cpm and I will send you the two attachments in an email.
Respectfully submitted
Calvin A. Patterson
New Berlin, WI
July 8, 2003
What went wrong in WELS?
Synod called workers were informed by the Synod President in November (Note: November, 2002, PWK) of a projected budget shortfall of $4.3 million by June 30, 2003 and a projected $8 million shortfall for the next budget year. In the following months actions were taken to reduce those deficits. Then in late April another communication from the Synod President indicating that $8.1 million in money expected to support the current years budget wasn't removed from "revolving funds" and was committed to supporting next years budget. (Note: Later this has been reported as $7 million. PWK) Additionally the $1.5 million shortfall from the prior biennium hadn't been considered in the budget planning for the next two years.
The obvious question is "How could all this have happened? The leadership team has committed to provide an explanation to the delegates at the Synod convention. That explanation will not include the issue that I and many people believe is the core issue behind these difficulties – leadership. Listed below are actions taken over the last six years. Because of these actions leadership in the future is the key issue facing this convention.
In 1997 the new Synodical Council was formed. A group within was convinced that they could "get the Synod moving". They influenced decisions from the selection of the first Executive Director of Support Services to the replacement of individuals with years of financial and administrative experience. A rigid and bureaucratic environment in the Support Services area of ministry developed. That environment has also caused the turnover of other positions in this area over time.
To "get things moving" requires money. Prior to the establishment of the Synodical Council some on the Synodical Council had made attempts to accelerate the spending of the Gift Trust Fund. They, along with the new leadership team, renewed those efforts. One of the resources of the organization was the $22 million in the Gift Trust Fund. Part of the policies of the Gift Trust Fund was an annual payout of 30% of the beginning of the year balance. That calculation allowed the fund to provide $6 to $7 million in annual support to the budget based on the receipt of a $5 million annual gifts to the fund. Since it is difficult for the Synod to quickly reduce ministry programs and staffing, this 30% provision provided time to reduce programs in a manageable way if future contributions were not received. Then the fund would be paid down over an eight year period.
By the spring of 1999, the Gift trust policies had been changed and the monies were programmed into the next biennial budget at a level that would eliminate them by 2003. What they had done was to create a "structural deficit" (one time revenue supporting continuing expenditures – much like what has been done in the State of Wisconsin and other states with detrimental results). However, they had a plan. After past capital offerings, congregational offering increased by about 30%. They expected a similar increase, after the capital offering that was in progress, to provide them with the ongoing revenue to replace the Gift Trust revenue that they were spending. Only subtle references to this plan were mentioned in the reports to the 1999 convention.
The first communication regarding the decision to eliminate the Gift Trust Fund was in the spring of 2001. This communication was the first general information made available to Synod members. Continuation of current spending was made possible and possible contraction of mission and ministry was avoided due to this strategy of betting upon a 30% increase in giving from congregations to make up for the Gift Trust liquidation.
By the fall of 2001, Synodical Council was beginning to talk about cutbacks and requested that areas of ministries prepare a 25% cutback exercise "just in case". By the fall of 2002 their 30% increase plan was not being realized and the exercise had become reality. This was compounded by the poor economic climate that also caused the Schwan Foundation to cut back its contributions. Yet the synod has been told, "Most of the downturn in our mission revenue was unforeseen and unavoidable".
The outcome had been a rapid contraction of the ongoing mission and ministry that we do together as members of the Synod. Resulting in faithful called workers being put into a period of uncertainty over job security and the mortgaging of our future mission and ministry efforts.
This was a major failure of the leadership team's responsibility over the stewardship of the resources placed in their control.
The second major failure has been the oversight of the financial operations of the synod. This too has been a crisis in the making over the last five years. When those with experience are eliminated and major financial systems that control how resources are received and disbursed are changed, the transition had better be done right or the result will be chaos. Those directly responsible for the financial operations need to be held accountable for the $8.1 million (Note: Revised as $7 million PWK) and $1.5 million in oversights.
However, the leadership team and the Synodical Council also need to bear responsibility for this second major failure in stewardship responsibility. They should have known that they had problems. They were not insisting on timely, accurate financial reports. For example, the annual audit report that had historically been completed in eight to ten weeks had in the last two years taken eight to ten months to get completed. Their failure to act in a timely manner resulted in an environment where failure to transfer resources from revolving funds to support the current Synod work program was possible. This led to the situations that actually occurred; using the same resources in the current biennium while also programming them into the revenue forecast for the new biennium and ignoring the deficit from the prior biennium.
The result will be less ministry work being accomplished over the next ten years due to this administration's mistakes and shortcomings.
APPENDIX F—WELS Constitution, Article IV Object and MOV
The WELS Constitution states in “Article IV Object” (Page 5, March 2006)
The object and purpose of the synod shall be to extend and conserve the true doctrine and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church:
(a) By assisting and counseling in every appropriate way the pastors, teachers, and congregations affiliated with the synod;
(b) By establishing and maintaining theological seminaries, colleges, academies, schools, and other institutions of learning;
(c) By establishing and maintaining home and world missions and such charitable institutions as it may deem appropriate to its calling;
(d) By printing, publishing, purchasing, selling, and disseminating literature that maintains Lutheran doctrine and practice;
(e) By furnishing appropriate literature for parish schools, Sunday schools, missions, institutions, and churches.
The MOV printed in the 2004 RTTTD, page 109 states:
Mission
As men, women and children united in faith and worship by the Word of God, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod exists to make disciples throughout the world for time and for eternity, using the gospel in Word and sacrament to win the lost for Christ and to nurture believers for lives of Christian service, all to the glory of God.
Objectives
1. To uphold and testify to the truth of God as fully revealed in the inspired, inerrant, infallible Holy Scriptures and articulated in the Lutheran Confessions, and to use Scripture as the sole authority.
2. To foster a sense of urgency for the lost and to seize every opportunity the Lord provides to evangelize lost souls.
3. To establish churches where Christians help each other grow and mature in the faith through public worship and a life-long study of the Word of God.
4. To encourage and equip each other for the application of our faith in lives of Christian service for the Lord, his church, and his world.
5. To mobilize our people, as member of the universal priesthood, in ministry using the Word.
6. To recruit and train candidates qualified for public ministry and provide for their continuing education so that the Word of God is proclaimed faithfully and effectively in accord with the Lutheran Confessions.
Challenging Opportunities for WELS
· Lead people to a passion for ALL the lost and equip them to reach these people
· Focus ministerial education on outreach.
· Individual spiritual growth and person witnessing.
Our WELS Vision
The gospel in Word and sacrament is everything!
There are four more headings: Go with it! Study It! Apply It! and Teach It!
-------------------------------------------------
Comment: I don’t know what the authors of the MOV intended, but I do note that preparing the workers for leadership in the public ministry of the church is 6th in Objectives and that references to worker training are made in the “Teach It” section. Our WELS Vision seems a bit distorted when Teach It! comes after Apply It!
I do know that the BME’s budget bore a disproportionately large proportion of the cutbacks. This would seem to indicate that some of those involved in the budgetary process have concluded that the MOV places the work of the BME at the bottom of the priorities. Please, see the discussion of infrastructure in the main body of comments.
APPENDIX G--Statistics
TOTALCONTRIBUTIONS SMO CONTRIBUTIONS
Year WELS Member-ship Total Congregational Contributions Net Increase (Decrease) -- Total Contributions Percent INCREASE in total contributions per year SMO Contributions Percent INCREASE/ DECREASE in SMO contributions per year Average percent of INCREASE/ DECREASE by decades SMO as a Percent of Total Contribu-tions If SMO had increased in Proportion to Total Contriburions
1974 $ 42,686,361 $ 6,815,258 15.97%
1975 293,982 $ 47,102,268 $ 4,415,907 10.35% $ 6,943,210 1.88% 14.74% $ 7,520,296.91
1976 298,614 $ 51,318,093 $ 4,215,825 8.95% $ 7,472,945 7.63% 14.56% $ 8,193,390.95
1977 302,687 $ 56,276,061 $ 4,957,968 9.66% $ 7,985,606 6.86% 14.19% $ 8,984,974.73
1978 304,677 $ 63,216,424 $ 6,940,363 12.33% $ 8,770,961 9.83% 13.87% $ 10,093,065.54
1979 306,995 $ 69,449,553 $ 6,233,129 9.86% $ 9,224,209 5.17% 6.27% 13.28% $ 11,088,240.14
1980 309,342 $ 76,846,892 $ 7,397,339 10.65% $ 10,042,588 8.87% 13.07% $ 12,269,291.25
1981 312,049 $ 86,593,253 $ 9,746,361 12.68% $ 11,512,499 14.64% 13.29% $ 13,825,384.65
1982 312,917 $ 90,568,800 $ 3,975,547 4.59% $ 12,229,622 6.23% 13.50% $ 14,460,116.17
1983 314,792 $ 100,727,743 $10,158,943 11.22% $ 12,770,309 4.42% 12.68% $ 16,082,081.96
1984 316,228 $ 106,301,675 $ 5,573,932 5.53% $ 12,996,116 1.77% 12.23% $ 16,972,009.89
1985 316,297 $ 109,571,312 $ 3,269,637 3.08% $ 13,736,454 5.70% 12.54% $ 17,494,036.58
1986 317,332 $ 115,559,718 $ 5,988,406 5.47% $ 14,249,632 3.74% 12.33% $ 18,450,138.97
1987 318,037 $ 120,234,950 $ 4,675,232 4.05% $ 15,071,092 5.76% 12.53% $ 19,196,581.43
1988 317,430 $ 124,866,544 $ 4,631,594 3.85% $ 15,265,610 1.29% 12.23% $ 19,936,056.69
1989 317,914 $ 133,914,098 $ 9,047,554 7.25% $ 15,375,123 0.72% 5.31% 11.48% $ 21,380,579.33
1990 317,720 $ 140,904,457 $ 6,990,359 5.22% $ 15,368,884 -0.04% 10.91% $ 22,496,652.45
1991 317,793 $ 146,894,421 $ 5,989,964 4.25% $ 15,508,165 0.91% 10.56% $ 23,453,003.59
1992 317,088 $ 155,119,783 $ 8,225,362 5.60% $ 15,849,726 2.20% 10.22% $ 24,766,255.95
1993 316,748 $ 162,683,930 $ 7,564,147 4.88% $ 15,780,815 -0.43% 9.70% $ 25,973,939.44
1994 316,221 $ 167,574,037 $ 4,890,107 3.01% $ 15,422,928 -2.27% 9.20% $ 26,754,688.61
1995* 315,127 $ 184,861,125 $17,287,088 10.32% $ 15,700,000 1.80% 8.49% $ 29,514,726.29
1996 315,377 $ 202,294,882 $17,433,757 9.43% $ 15,973,756 1.74% 7.90% $ 32,298,180.98
1997 315,355 $ 211,925,446 $ 9,630,564 4.76% $ 16,296,082 2.02% 7.69% $ 33,835,786.36
1998 315,581 $ 223,183,803 $11,258,357 5.31% $ 16,831,935 3.29% 7.54% $ 35,633,283.40
1999 315,637 $ 231,400,914 $ 8,217,111 3.68% $ 17,249,146 2.48% 1.17% 7.45% $ 36,945,218.41
2000 316,386 $ 247,798,147 $16,397,233 7.09% $ 17,581,715 1.93% 7.10% $ 39,563,182.81
2001 315,847 $ 257,825,097 $10,026,950 4.05% $ 17,331,704 -1.42% 6.72% $ 41,164,074.75
2002 315,312 $ 261,852,046 $ 4,026,949 1.56% $ 18,468,488 6.56% 7.05% $ 41,807,013.05
2003 314,840 $ 279,600,740 $17,748,694 6.78% $ 23,153,731 25.37% 8.28% $ 44,640,750.24
2004 314,842 $ 298,089,609 $18,488,869 6.61% $ 21,369,098 -7.71% 7.17% $ 47,592,662.97
2005 313,553 $ 300,844,064 $ 2,754,455 0.92% $ 22,044,475 3.16% 4.65% 7.33% $ 48,032,436.26
AVERAGES 6.55% 4.00%
APPENDIX H--A Parable
Joe was a reasonably successful family man; a 3-bedroom house in the suburbs; A wife and three children to fill it and had put some savings into long term investments. WELS from 1950 to 1990—Synod had done pretty well on the unofficial slogan “Every state by ‘78” and world mission corps had grown from 6 (or 7) to 50
One day Joe decided he really wanted to impress his boss. So he purchased a house with 15 rooms, five baths. He used up the money he had been saving for a rainy day, because it seemed that his income was growing adequately. “We are going to get the Synod moving,” so we are going to put this money lying in the investments (the gift trust fund) to work. Nineteen (19) additional world missionaries are sent out and budgeting is planned on the projected carry over from a special offering.
For Joe the heating and maintenance of his mansion soon drained any savings he hadn’t previously spent. So he started to do more borrowing in order to make the budget balance. To cut down on heating bills the family only used six rooms. Seventeen world missionaries are recalled and throughout the Synod a 25% reduction in budget is first projected as an “exercise,” and within a few months became the hard reality.
Joe begins to draw on the money that he had set aside for the children’s education. That helps him through a year or two. Then the children are required to use their birthday savings account, first, just for clothes but eventually the funds are used also for taxes. The special non-specifically designated gifts that had been given to the Synodical schools are used to maintain the schools budgets. Through that method the budget of the entire Synod is “balanced.”
Joe manages to get through another year or two but the tax bill has to be paid. By now he is desperately trying to look under the cushions on the couch to find enough money to buy some groceries. To keep the family bucked up he is constantly telling them how he is impressing his boss and he has his most naive child actually cheering him on. For the 2007 budget plan efforts have been made to review all the designated funds, to find enough where the designation has in some say lapsed. $2,000,000+ in non-recurring funds are being use to fund the budget after fiscal 2006.
APPENDIX I—SC Executive Summary, November 3-4, 2006 and News Release
(Bold was in the original. Underlining and notes at the end are mine.)
Synodical Council Meeting
November 3-4, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Some committees met prior to the 8:30 starting time in order to complete their business. Pastor Mueller opened the plenary session with the second of a two part Bible study on the End Times. The signs of Christ’s imminent return are not to scare but to prepare believers. When the Son of Man comes in judgment, we will be judged by a peer, one who became fully human to live our life under the law and to die our death on the cross. Thus we wait in eager expectation of his return, because we are confident of the verdict at the final judgment.
The minutes from the April SC meeting were adopted. There was discussion on the printed reports by district lay representatives. Comments noted that there is general knowledge that our budgets and expenditures have stabilized, but that significant challenges in maintaining our ministerial education system still face us. Discussion also noted the COP report and the president’s state of the church report.
The president then gave the floor to Mr. Seth Hansen, the chairman of the SC Finance Committee for his report. The SC adopted the support forecast for fiscal year 06-07 and for fiscal years 07-09. The council also adopted the president’s proposed budget allocations for fiscal years 07-09. The adopted allocations leave all areas of ministry short of covering their annual increases in expenses and leave our schools with large challenges. Yet, because three quarters of operating support goes to missions and ministerial education, the allocation falls in line with the spirit and letter or convention resolutions.
The council also adopted a resolution to apply monies in unallocated special funds to paying off negative balances in the vicar program, the Forward in Christ thank-offering commitments, the Ministry of Planned Giving, and in the WELS Investment Funds.
The Finance Committee did not recommend an MOT proposal that the remaining $2,608,039 of unrestricted special fund money be allocated to Ministerial Education. The president allowed a lengthy discussion on this matter. Discussed were the rationale for the recommendation; the lack of wisdom in allocating one time money for ongoing expenses1, the failure to address the long term viability of the ministerial education system; the need to get to the point where we can living (sic) within available resources for all of our ministries and a summary review of current and future Ministerial Education budget. After the discussion, the president directed Finance to return to committee sessions to rewrite their recommendation.
FROM SATURDAY AFTERNOON SUMMARY
The Finance Committee returned to present their reworked resolution. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn in favor of a second resolution which was also withdrawn. The council adopted a third resolution to apply the balance of $3,608,039 of the wells Unrestricted Fund to the Board of Ministerial Education (BME) during the 2007-2009 biennium. Ministerial Education was asked to come back in February with a budget plan that includes the incorporation of these funds. President Gurgel indicated that he would initiate a study of how to replace pastoral candidates if the prep schools were defunded in future plans2.
WELS news release
November 6, 2006
Synodical Council discusses preliminary plans and budgets
The Synodical Council met at the Synod Administration Building in Milwaukee, Wis., on Nov. 3-4. According to his Word and promise, God guided the church’s leaders through two days of very difficult decision-making. Bible studies on the End Times by WELS President Karl Gurgel and Vice President Wayne Mueller at the beginning of each session set a spiritual tone for the meeting.
Most of the meeting was devoted to reviewing plans and the resulting summary budgets for each area of ministry. The Synodical Council confirmed the allocation percentages approved last spring, which earmarked 75 percent of the total operating budget to ministerial education and mission outreach. The remainder of the budget is for the Conference of Presidents and its district ministry, Christian Giving, Parish Services, Finance, Technology, and Communication Services.
To ensure a balanced budget the council limited ministry plans to available funding. Plans for the operating budget show small increases in ministry support for each of the next four years. Significant ministry needs, however, are unfunded in these proposed budgets. Minimum support for mission work prevents WLES from taking advantage of pressing opportunities. Parish Services will struggle to maintain basic service to congregations. Funding for the Conference of Presidents, the Ministry of Christian Giving, and Communication Services is very tight.
Most challenging is the anticipated projected deficits at the ministerial education schools. Primarily because of lower enrollment3, the schools are facing shortfalls of $2-$4 million in each of the next four years4. To minimize the impact these shortfalls will have on educating future called workers, the Synodical Council approved a special one-time grant to Ministerial Education of an additional $2.6 million for the next biennium (July1, 2007-June 30,2009). Ministerial Education is to return in February 2007 with a plan to manage the remainder of its budget shortfalls. That plan may have to include defunding Michigan Lutheran Seminary, Saginaw, Mich., and partially funding Luther Prep School, Watertown, Wis., after the 2007-2008 schoolyear. In late February 2007, the council will give final approval of all ministry plans and budgets for the next biennium and then submit the information for consideration at the 2007 synod convention.
Although lacking the financial resources to maintain and expand gospel ministry, the Lord is providing great blessing to WELS. Home Missions is planning to help with 150 ministry opportunities in the next two years. World Missions has added a mission professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon, Wis. Enrollments at the ministerial schools continue to provide the workers WELS needs for the harvest fields5. Electronic communication, the Multi-Language Publications Committee, and a newly reopened seminary in Hong Kong are allowing WELS to lift high the cross in fields where it cannot send missionaries.
Says Gurgel, “As we struggle with our human frailties, our eyes rise heavenward in thanksgiving and with trust that the Lord of the Church will bless our efforts fot the salvation of many souls and the coming of his kingdom.”
1. If only this discussion had been seriously considered before the 1996 to 2002 spend down of funds. See the Comments.
2. After making decisions that will most likely defund prep schools, if the SC budget is adopted, the president is going to start research on recruitment, a primary function of prep schools.
3. After decisions at the SC level have made it necessary to raise tuition and fees in big chunks, it seems in appropriate to use that as a reason to put the BME under even more budgetary pressure.
4. Shouldn’t this rather be: “The Synod is facing shortfall of $2-$4 million” rather than “the schools are facing a shortfall of $2-$4 million.” The Synod’s purpose includes the schools.
5. What a jumble! Apparently ministerial schools here means WLS, because enrollments have fallen at MLC and the prep schools. The workers are there for the immediate future, but the very fact that President Gurgel is to study how to replace pastoral candidates indicates a long range problem."
The report can be dowloaded from http://www.issuesinwels.org/