15 YEARS UNDER THE WELS MOV

"I want gigs like Koine's - $3,000 appearance fee!"

15 YEARS UNDER THE WELS MOV

Review and Reflection

Trinity Lutheran Church, Union Grove, WI

April 25, 2005

[Author: Marcus Manthey?; Formerly on the Issues in WELS website, formerly on the WELS essays website, now preserved from harm on Ichabod.]


I. Introduction

Fifteen years ago this month, the 1989 Book of Reports and Memorials to the 50th biennial convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) brought the report of the Conference of Presidents (COP), which included this tantalizing news: “Finally, the Mission-Vision statement, prepared by a specially appointed committee, is in the process of revision and will come to the convention in a supplementary report.” Since the statement in question had not yet been given a broad audience, it is interesting to note that the COP still felt it necessary to follow in the very next sentence of its report with the assurance: “Let it be said as forcefully as we can that this is not an attempt to program the Holy Spirit.” (‘89 BoRaM, 138) Clearly, the plan to express the “mission” and the “vision” of the WELS in this new way -- one that reflected strategic planning methods and corporate management techniques rather than traditional theological discourse – had already garnered enough concern to merit this strongly-worded disclaimer.

Further concerns would follow, as would further assurances. Several memorials to the synod addressed the issue, including one from the Dakota-Montana District that noted “in setting goals that only the Holy Spirit can accomplish by his good will and according to his timetable and that man is incapable of deciding on, our eyes are taken off the gospel and we are much more prone to use methods that are removed from the gospel and associated with the law.” (‘89 Proceedings, 52f) In his ‘89 report to the convention, synod president, Pastor Carl Mischke, echoed the COP’s earlier words of assurance: “Let it be clearly understood that no one is attempting to program the Holy Spirit. That would not only be impossible; it would be arrogant and presumptuous. ...But though we do not know what will happen tomorrow, God still encourages planning, but always planning that makes God an important part of the equation.” (‘89 Proceedings, 30) After some spirited discussion, the convention adopted a resolution approving what was called the Vision 2000+ Statement and instructing each division of the synod to bring reports to the next synod convention “on its progress in implementing and further redefining Vision 2000+.” The synod had cted... but, for some, a sense of ill-ease lingered.

Fast forward to April of 2005. Our beloved Wisconsin Synod has now existed for fifteen years under administrative leadership guided by what today we know as the WELS Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement (MOV). On such an anniversary, it is reasonable to ask how we have fared. Are we, as a synod, better off today than we were before the MOV? Has our vision been clear? Have our objectives been smart? Are we fulfilling our mission? I understand it to be my assignment in this paper to give some focused attention to our synod’s MOV, to review its history for those who may have forgotten it or who did not live through it, and to reflect on the role it has played and is now playing in “the mission and ministry” of the WELS. In particular, this paper will review and reflect on the words of our WELS Mission Statement, allowing clear light from Holy Scripture to illuminate its now-familiar words.

I need to begin with a disclaimer. While, over the past decade and half, I have found cause from time to time both to think about and to express my thoughts about the WELS MOV Statement, the paper before you is largely the work of the past three weeks. That must tell you at least two things. First, in what is written here I stand on the shoulders of many other men far more wise, experienced and insightful than myself. I give them credit for whatever you find here that is worthwhile, and willingly shoulder the blame for all that is not. Second, this paper neither claims nor attempts to be a comprehensive treatment of the topic. I have been disappointed to find that very little seems to have been written in our circles about the MOV; in fact, there is not even much serious scholarship recorded about our Savior’s Great Commission, from which the “mission” portion of the MOV is drawn. These subjects deserve more attention among us than they have been given, but this paper will do little to address that need. It is offered, as its title suggests, for review and reflection. It is intended to assist and stimulate discussion. If it serves that end, it has achieved its purpose.

II. Background

As many of you may already know far better than I, statements of mission, of objectives, and of joint vision are all key elements drawn from the broader field of strategic planning. Since some may share my inexperience in this area, however, allow me to lay a bit of groundwork by sharing the fruits of some research drawn mainly from A Strategic Planning Primer by Alexander Lerner. As Lerner explains it, the history of strategic planning begins in the military. In that context, “strategy” is “the science of planning and directing large-scale military operations, of maneuvering forces into the most advantageous position prior to actual engagement with the enemy.” (Lerner, 1) The aim, simply put, is to gain a competitive advantage. In the mid-twentieth century, several forward-thinking corporate executives began to recognize the similarities between the military command structure and the hierarchical organization and competitive values of their own businesses. The potential benefits of adapting the military’s planning model to the corporate world seemed clear. The earliest business planning models emerged “in the 1950s and (were) very popular and widespread in the 1960s to mid-1970s, when then people believed (they were) the answer for all problems; corporate America became ‘obsessed’ with strategic planning.” (Lerner, 3) After their initial surge, such planning models fell out of favor for more than a decade, only to be revived toward the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. This revival also featured some revisions from the original strategies, however.
“New models of strategic planning are focused on adaptability to change, flexibility, and the importance of strategic thinking and organizational learning. ‘Strategic agility’ is becoming more important than the strategy itself, because the organization’s ability to succeed has more to do with its ability to transform itself continuously, than whether it has the right strategy. Being strategically agile enables organizations to transform their strategy depending on the changes in their environment.” (Lerner, 4)
Just as military strategies may reflect the preferences of individual commanders but are based on commonly-accepted principles, so the evolution of corporate strategic planning (SP) produced multiple models, exhibiting differing points of focus but grounded on very similar basic concepts.

3

In virtually every SP model, for example, developing a “vision” and expressing a “mission” come very near the start of the process. Though the two tasks are related, there are distinct differences. A vision statement is an expression of a state or condition in which corporate founders or leaders hope to find their corporation at some future point in time. The vision expresses the “ideal” for that corporation. It describes, as specifically as possible, what the business or organization is meant to achieve as it moves toward the future. An effective vision statement ought to be ambitious, even apparently unreachable, so that it provides a clear challenge to excel. On the other hand, a mission statement defines the purpose of a business or organization. It is much more grounded in immediate reality. According to mission statement guru, Christopher Bart, “A good mission statement captures an organization’s unique and enduring reason for being, and energizes stakeholders to pursue common goals.” (Cited in Business) The reference to “stakeholders” underscores an important element of the SP approach. A strength claimed by SP is its ability to articulate an organization’s goals in a way that allows everyone on all levels of the organization to feel a part of the plan, and to “take ownership” of it as it applies to his own work. This is not the same, however, as involving everyone in the planning process as, for example, a democratic approach would do. While SP encourages moving some decision-making down to the lowest possible level of management, it also assumes, in fact it requires a firm hand at the rudder on the very top deck of the administrative ship.

In further clarifying the distinction between “vision” and “mission,” author Jeff Abrahams in The Mission Statement Book also touches on the key issue of how an organization makes decisions. “A vision statement pushes the association toward some future goal or achievement, while a mission statement guides current, critical, strategic decision making.” (Abrahams cited by Cardani, 2) As the last few words of that quote reveal, SP methodology is designed to have a major impact on the way organizations make decisions. The “plan” is more than just an outline of how an organization will go about doing things. It is meant to be a touchstone for determining what the organization will do. As a result, it is easy for the planning process in itself to be seen as providing the foundation, even the justification, for decisions that are made. Furthermore, those who best understand the plan will feel most capable of making the decisions, and they will be hesitant to allow decisions to be made by anyone who does not fully grasp, or fully accept, the plan. Clearly, as it is understood today, SP is much more than just a management technique. It is meant to be a transformational process that fundamentally alters the way a business or organization understands and approaches its work on all levels. Lerner explains, “With time, people on all levels begin making decisions within the framework of the organization’s strategic vision and mission. Strategic planning becomes an organizational norm, deeply embedded within the organization’s decision-making process, and participants learn to think strategically as part of their regular daily activities.” (Lerner, 4) Put simply, SP isn’t just meant to help an organization; it is meant to change the organization. Before leaving this look at SP in the secular context, it may be interesting to consider a few of the cautions that A Strategic Planning Primer offers about potential problems with these planning models. I quote from Lerner at random:
“Strategic planning, if misused, might become a tool for gaining control over decisions,
strategies, actions, management, employees, markets and customers, rather than a comprehensive and integrated instrument for bringing the organization to its desired future.”
4
“Strategic planning may diminish the full exercise of corporate judgment in that it dismisses intuition (Might we say faith?) and favors readily available, interpretable “hard” data...”
(Addition mine)
“Strategic planning may inhibit creativity and does not easily accommodate itself to truly
creative ideas.”
“Strategic planning might increase political activity among participants by increasing conflict within the organization, reinforcing a notion of centralized hierarchy, and challenging
formal channels of authority.” (Lerner, 8)

Let it be said that such problems are in no sense seen as an inevitable by-product of the SP
process. However, it is noteworthy that even the experts present their ideas with a caveat emptor. Before leaving the section on background, it may be appropriate to note how the decades-long evolution of the SP process in the corporate world eventually – and, perhaps, inevitably – found its way into the domain of the church. Like the military and like the corporation, the visible church is an institution of long standing, steeped in tradition and accustomed to a hierarchical approach to administration. At least by analogy, SP and the church would appear to be a natural fit. Church members were exposed in the workplace to SP models; they saw their businesses experience progress and profit from the approach. It was only a matter of time before some enterprising individuals sought ways to become “wise as foxes” and apply the methods of the kingdom of this world to the kingdom of God.

Fire up the Internet and do a Google search of “Church Strategic Planning” – you will find yourself faced with nearly a million and a half “hits.” Many of them detail the SP experiences of
individual congregations, and a quick survey of sites makes it hard to imagine that there is any denomination, any stripe, any corner of the church today that has not been caught up in the SP tsunami. There are myriad sites promoting strategic models, touting the newest books or seminars, or conducting strategic Scripture studies to learn how Noah, Moses, David, Peter, Paul and Jesus himself all were strategic planners and how SP is not only Bible-based, it is Bible-mandated. However, there are also more than a few sites that utter a discouraging word, either warning about the secularizing or corporatizing effects such planning models can have on church work or relating sad stories about high hopes dashed when plans did not pan out. In other words, there is a broad latitude of opinion about the appropriateness and benefits of applying the strategic model to sacred affairs, but there is no denying that mission-vision strategies have
captured the attention of the religious world. And no other single advocate of SP has succeeded as well at capturing and capitalizing on this wave of attention as has Rick Warren, pastor, author, religious entrepreneur and originator of the “Purpose Driven” phenomenon we have all come to know. The catalyst for Pastor Rick’s high-profile impact on the modern religious world was his book, The Purpose Driven Church, first published in November of 1995. (Note: In the interest of full disclosure, let it be said that I have not fully read this book, nor have I studied it at length. The selective reading I did in it convinced me that my too rare and precious study time could be better spent elsewhere.) To date, that book has sold nearly 1½ million copies in a field where 10,000 in sales constitutes a blockbuster. What Warren offers is what amounts to a marketing plan for a congregation, one that promises growth to any church that will adhere to Warren’s five key principles, summarized briefly as Worship, Ministry, Evangelism, Fellowship and Discipleship. (Alexander, 1) Claims Warren, a balance of these five principles ensures a healthy church, health that is secured
5
“by clarifying in the minds of everyone involved exactly why the church exists and what it is supposed to do. There is incredible power in having a clearly defined mission statement.” (Warren, 86) It is not the task of this paper to offer an assessment of Warren’s purpose-driven world. His ideas are mentioned here only to illustrate the degree to which the SP model of the corporate world has been absorbed into the fabric of the American religious scene. As indicated by the closing words of the quote in the previous paragraph, Warren’s purpose-driven approach is an application of a SP model in the context of church growth. It comes as no surprise, then, for us to hear Warren suggest that one of a pastor’s most important functions is to be “the keeper of the vision” for his congregation. It is predictable to hear him emphasize the essential need to give a congregation’s mission statement a high profile so that all members will take ownership of it. It follows that he should recommend that a church’s mission and
vision statements be expressed in measurable terms, so that “every ministry can be evaluated based on the church’s stated purpose,” and so that “effective ministries” can be supported and “non-productive ministries” abandoned. (Elias, 3)
This is the purpose-driven way, and it is hard not be impressed by its results. Just over a week
ago, Warren leased Angels Stadium in Los Angeles, CA, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Saddleback Community Church, the “test case” for his purpose-driven vision. I wasn’t able to find membership figures for the congregation, but their baptisms in 2004 topped 2,000 and their weekly worship attendance averages just under 20,000. It is hard for us to fathom statistics like that. It is tempting to ask, “Can something so successful possibly be bad?”
Let me share a brief response to that question, drawn from a review of The Purpose Driven
Church, penned by Paul Alexander: Warren’s primary claim is that churches need to be driven not by programs or traditions, but by purpose (pp75-80). ...Yet the Bible does not ascribe driving power to purposes –– even God’s purposes. Warren quotes Proverbs 19:21 at the head of his chapter on the driving power of purpose: “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purposes that prevail.” True, but how do the Lord’s purposes prevail? God accomplishes His purposes by His Word. God clarifies this distinct relationship
between His word and His purposes in Isaiah 55:10-11: As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Isaiah teaches not only that God’s word accomplishes God’s purposes, but also that God Himself distinguishes between His word and His purposes, such that the two cannot be equated. The New Testament specifies that the driving power for the church is only available in God’s word as we find it in
the gospel. Paul is “not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16; cf. 1Cor 1:18; James 1:18, 21; 1Pet 1:23-25).
The purposes that Warren highlights are altogether biblical, but they do not have driving power
for the church. God’s Word is what provides driving power for His purposes. We do not need more purpose driven churches. We need more gospel driven churches. (Alexander, 2)
I don’t know that I can improve on those words... and they provide a fitting segue into our next section.

III. Review One: History

In preparation for this paper, I contacted roughly a dozen synodical leaders and officials in order
to solicit their comments regarding the WELS MOV and the role they felt it plays in our synod’s work
6
and in their own ministries. Not all were able to respond but several did; some of their comments will be cited in what follows.

Only one responder, Vice President Wayne Mueller, chose to offer a summary of the history of the MOV in our synod. As his summary offers both information and commentary, I will quote it fully:

Neither (President) Gurgel nor I were a part of it, but I believe the MOV got its start in Oconomowoc in 1985. WELS had suffered through the long recession of the early ‘80s that ousted Carter and inserted Reagan. The synod was hurting for money worse than we are now. Dozens of pastors and teachers were unassigned. The tent ministries for Sem graduates at that time did not pan out well. We commissioned a number of doctrinal papers to assess what our problem was. On the basis of those papers the COP in 1987 started the original "Spiritual Renewal Program." Those who criticize the SC's Spiritual Growth effort should remember that the COP did this first and bigger. They put Paul Kelm on the road for three years. The 1985 Oconomowoc meeting of top WELS leaders was the beginning of strategic planning for the old Coordinating Council. Out of that meeting also came the restructuring which initiated Parish Services. The unanimous perception was that the synod was weak because its constituent congregations were weak. But none of those efforts resolved all the money problems. By the early 1990's we were in such tough fiscal shape that the CC conceived the inconceivable: amalgamation of our schools! In 1993 the CC also put the original Mission Vision statement before the synod convention. That was the one with all the specific ministry goals that a loud minority of pastors claimed was tempting the Holy Spirit. Four years later, at the 1997 convention, the COP and CC came to the convention with a new MOV (the current one). This new MOV was adopted along with a major constitutional restructuring which eliminated the Board of Trustees and instituted the current Synodical Council with its 50-50 layclergy
make-up. (Mueller, MOV)

It is likely that VP Mueller was responding from memory and, as for all of us who are chipping
away at our second half-century, memory is not always a perfectly reliable resource. A few details of the above summary are awry, but overall it offers a valuable summary of our synod’s venture into the realm of strategic planning. The vice-president’s comments also are spiced with several intriguing insights, about which more will come later. Allow me to flesh out the skeleton that VP Mueller has supplied with some bits of information culled from fifteen years of WELS Books of Reports and Memorials (BoRaM), Proceedings and Reports to the Districts. As VP Mueller suggests, the fiscal picture in our synod during the early years of the ‘80s decade was not a happy one. Whether the financial “hurt” was greater then than it is now is a matter of
judgment. To my knowledge, no calls were terminated in the ‘80s, no missionaries were recalled, and no one seriously suggested that synod schools should support themselves apart from synodical subsidy. On the other hand, the 1982 WELS Report to the Districts indicates a budgetary shortfall in the synod that approached $2 million. In the slumping U.S. economy, offerings were slipping. Worker training campuses enjoyed up-swings in enrollment but this put added strains on already aging facilities. Serious adjustments were needed. The ‘83 convention made them. In particular, three actions of that convention stand out. The first was the approval of a major, synod-wide capital funds drive to address the need for building on our campuses. The drive became known as Reaching Out. The second action was the convention’s approval of the plan to end synodical contributions to the synod’s called worker pension plan, deferring all contributions to the local congregations. (The inevitable impact of this action on synod-wide CMO is

7

often over-looked.) The third action approved the formation of an Administration Survey Committee (ASC) to investigate the need to restructure administration on both the synod and district levels. VP Mueller credits a 1985 Oconomowoc meeting with initiating the administrative reform that would result in the creation of the division of Parish Services. I can not vouch for the exact timing, but the record does confirm that the report of the ASC to the ‘85 convention included the recommendation to expand the synod’s top level administrative structure to include six rather than five divisions, adding a new division devoted to Parish Services. This new division was meant to group together an assortment of activities and services that formerly had been administered by other divisions (e.g. Parish Schools under Worker Training, Campus Ministries and Evangelism under Home Missions, etc.). This same ASC report shows some of the earliest evidence I encountered that SP was finding a place in the WELS, as it touted the advantages of goal orientation in administrative planning, and supported the first request for a Director of Programming and Planning (later, Program Planning Analyst) to serve the Coordinating Council. The ASC closed its 66-page report with the hope that the changes it recommended “will enable the Synod to fulfill even more effectively its stated objectives:” (‘85 BoRaM, 287) The report then cited six such objectives, but not those found in Article IV of the WELS Constitution. Rather, they appear to come from an early draft of a new document that would be known as Mission-Vision 2000. In the following spring, the ‘86 Report to the Districts brought the first report of the newlyfunctioning Division of Parish Services. To a synod accustomed to single-focus administrative divisions, this new multi-service entity raised more than a few eyebrows and elicited early concerns about the possibilities of a burgeoning synod bureaucracy. Those concerns are echoed in the ‘87 BoRaM that accounts for a $1 million budget gap by pointing to dropping worker training enrollments, a stumbling economy, “overly-optimistic growth projections” in home missions, and “substantially increased” administrative costs associated with the creation of the Parish Services division and the Commission for
Communication and Financial Support (CCFS). (‘87 BoRaM, 147).

Another noteworthy development from the ‘87 convention was the passage of a memorial urging that the Parish Services division be charged with coordinating a synod-wide program of spiritual renewal. The memorial claimed, in part, that “within the congregations of the synod there are numerous evidences of spiritual weakness.” (‘87 BoRaM, 270f) VP Mueller’s recollection of the conviction that the synod’s weaknesses could be traced to its congregations was beginning to be translated into action – that is, action on the synodical level designed to address perceived weaknesses on the congregational level. A brief aside: If you still own a copy of the Proceedings from the ‘87 convention, drag it out and review the three essays presented to the delegates at that gathering. The convention theme was “Equipping the Believers.” The essayists were Pastors David Valleskey, Ron Roth, and Paul Kelm, all of whom would continue to be highly influential voices in synod affairs. The essays -- on discipling, stewardship and evangelism, respectively – are an interesting study in contrasts and offer an apt illustration of the intersecting schools of thought then weaving through the WELS at its upper levels. Pastor Roth’s essay is a no-apologies application of SP models to stewardship training. Pastor Kelm’s work displays the openness to the social science aspects of church growth theory for which he is well known. Pastor Valleskey offers one of the most complete examinations of the Great Commission from Matthew 28 that I have been able to find in WELS literature. His thoughts on how the term “disciple” may rightly be understood will earn further attention later in this paper. Each of these three essays is significant in its own way, and all ought to be required reading for anyone wishing to understand how the WELS got to where it is today.

8

Our review of our synod’s move toward strategic planning takes on sharper focus as we reach the end of the 1980s. The Coordinating Council’s report in the ‘88 Report to the Districts announces the establishment of its first “strategic planning committee,” chaired by Pastor Conrad Frey, past president of Dr. Martin Luther College. It also noted the synod’s adoption of the decision-package approach to budgeting, a strategic planning tool aggressively advocated by several lay members of the CC. My research was unsuccessful in turning up any written record of “the 1985 Oconomowoc meeting” to which VP Mueller refers. However, in a basement file cabinet I did discover a dusty file marked “Synod Matters” that revealed a mimeographed document titled Getting to Know Strategic Planning and Sharpening the Environmental Focus, containing material assembled for a “WELS seminar” at Oconomowoc in September of 1988. The presenter was Pastor Conrad Frey, chairman of the CC’s strategic planning committee. It is possible that this may have been a later gathering or, perhaps, our VP may have had the location right but year wrong. In any case, Pastor Frey’s presentation is an easily recognized application of SP models to our WELS “environment.” It included recommendations for “formulating missions and objectives” and “identifying strategies to achieve the synod’s aims.” (Frey, 2)
The WELS had bought its ticket on the SP express and it would soon begin picking up speed.
While VP Mueller is correct in saying that the 1993 convention received a new MOV, it was not
in fact the original statement. That was presented to the synod in convention already in 1989. Not quite ready in time to meet the deadline for printing of the ‘89 BoRaM, the Mission-Objectives-Vision 2000+ statement appeared first as a supplementary report. The statement, along with later revisions, is attached to this paper as Appendix A.

Of note is the vocal chorus of concern that accompanied the introduction of this new and nontraditional way of describing the synod’s work. Though off a few years in time, VP Mueller is right on target with his memory of “a loud minority of pastors” who “claimed (it) was tempting the Holy Spirit.” The loudest objections were to the Vision portion of the statement which incorporated a number of very specific (and therefore “measurable”) ministry goals, including increases to 1500 congregations, 10 new cross-cultural missions, 70 world missionaries, a rise from 40% to 60% in church attendance, from 11% to 30% in bible class attendance, and the like. (‘89 Proceedings, 55f) With the ‘89 convention’s acceptance of MOV 2000+ to be “used as a guide in our synod to plan and implement future church work as we depend on the Holy Spirit’s strength and blessing,” (‘89 Proceedings, 58), strategic planning found its place in the administration of the WELS. That convention’s approval of requests to hire a Program Planning Analyst to serve the CC (a position filled by Mr. Douglas Wellumson) and to call the first full-time administrator for Parish Services only solidified the trend. The decade of the 1990s offers ample evidence of the effects of strategic thinking on our synod’s administrative procedures. Already in the early years of the decade, the records reveal repeated mention of expressions that have grown increasingly familiar, of the need to foster “an openness to change,” of
the need for increased “quickness and flexibility” in decision making, and of the need to “enlist everyone’s participation in fulfilling the WELS mission.” Notably, the means cited to enlist that participation was not to support local pastors and congregations in their efforts to administer the means of grace, but rather “to seek ways to communicate more effectively our WELS Mission, Objectives and Visions to our WELS people and pastors...” (‘91 Proceedings, 185)

The 1991 convention will best be remembered as the opening of the great amalgamation debate. It may also deserve note for hearing the first memorial urging the synod to alter delegate representation at conventions to reflect a 50/50 balance between called workers and lay people. The convention killed the memorial. It would rise again.

9

The early ‘90s also offer evidence of the rising importance of the role that Parish Services was playing in the work of the synod. The Parish Services report in the ‘92 Report to the Districts opens with the striking claim “Parish Services has primary responsibility for carrying out the goals of the synod’s Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement adopted by the 1989 convention.” (‘92 Report, 86) Clearly, our Parish Services leaders could not be faulted for a lack of chutzpah.
In keeping with VP Mueller’s summary, 1993 did bring a new MOV before the synod, not the
original but a revision and update titled MOV 2003+. (Cf. Appendix A) The convention’s resolution commended but, curiously, did not formally adopt this revision. (‘93 Proceedings, 187). No matter. The MOV was firmly entrenched in the WELS body politic, so much so that the synod’s divisional Board for Administration was moved to memorialize the synod to amend its Constitution, replacing its Article IV - Object with the WELS Mission and Objectives (MO) statement. The memorial cited the “need for greater use of those mission and objectives statements” (‘93 Proceedings, 49) as its rationale and the convention concurred. It approved the memorial, passing it on to the districts as is required for constitutional change. In the annals of synod history, this action is sure to be overshadowed by other events at the ‘93 convention, including the election of Karl Gurgel as synod president, the approval of the resurgent 50/50
delegate mix proposal, and most momentously, the decision to amalgamate four worker training schools into two. But the significance of this attempt to elevate the MO to constitutional status should not be underestimated. After only a few short years of experience with it, our WELS leaders had come to accept strategic planning as systemic and to view the MO as an essential “need,” one worthy of constitutional permanence. The response of the synod to this proposed constitutional change may been seen to signal the beginning of a developing disconnect between our synod’s leadership and its constituency. The ‘95 convention was mainly preoccupied with work relating to amalgamation. However, the proposed adoption of the MO into the Constitution did not escape notice. The response of the districts to the proposed constitutional change was virtually unanimous rejection. Undaunted, the synod’s Committee on Constitutional Matters (CCM) proposed using the MO as a “prologue” to the Constitution. This idea, too, was spurned by the convention, noting in its resolution that “the MO was never intended for our statement of purpose.” (‘95 Proceedings, 63) It is likely the synod’s leading strategic planners were more than a little distressed to hear that.

The resolution also reported that “there appears to be some confusion over what constitutes
membership in the synod as used in the MO.” There will be more on that “confusion” to follow, but an interesting footnote to this convention’s action is found in a second but lesser-known attempt to amend the synod’s Constitution. The proposed amendment sought more clearly to define what was to be understood as “membership” in the synod by clarifying the distinction between congregational and synodical membership. In part, the memorial proposed that:
“The synod shall maintain this distinction between primary (congregation) and auxiliary (synod) groupings of Christians so as to affirm and to practice the intent, design, and spirit of the founding fathers of the WELS who believed that the synod is to stand ‘only as an advisory body.’” And, further, “To retain this distinction in a practical way, the synod shall preserve to the local parish and its male pastor(s) the discretionary privilege of judgment over and of voluntary participation in all synodical programs, projects and plans, save adherence to the synodical supervision of doctrine and the practice thereof in conformity to Article X, Sec. 2 as befitting the arrangement of autonomous congregations leagued with a ministerium
in a fraternal and democratically minded, organized and governed confederation.” (‘95 BoRaM, 221)

10

At least one signer of this memorial is in our midst today; he may or may not choose to comment further. Not surprisingly, this proposed amendment also failed to find favor with the convention. In our current context, however, one is inclined to wonder whether it was simply an idea whose time had not yet come. Unquestionably, the memorial serves to underscore the increasing tensions between the synod’s administration and its “grass roots.”

The latter years of the ‘90s decade brought further administrative reform and restructuring. The old tri-cameral system that split administrative authority among the Conference of Presidents, the Coordinating Council and the Board of Trustees was viewed as too cumbersome to accommodate the kind of flexibility and rapid decision making ability that the strategic models recommended. A Synod Restructuring Committee (SRC) proposed consolidating the work of the CC and the BOT under a single “Synodical Council.” The SRC’s recommendations, first presented at the ‘95 convention, were supported in principle by the districts and ultimately passed by the ‘97 convention, along with approval of the multiple constitutional changes needed to implement restructuring. Among those changes was the remarkable new wording of Article VII, Sec. 3, which affords to the Synodical Council (SC) virtually unassailable authority in acting on behalf of the synod. It is difficult not to view this delegation of authority to the SC as a successful effort to centralize decision-making authority in the synod in order to allow for the sort of rapid, responsive and flexible administrative action that SP models encourage. And, although this administrative restructuring did nothing directly to affect the role or function of the Conference of Presidents, it is difficult to view the measure of prominence and authority afforded to the new SC and not conclude that the role and status of the COP in synodical affairs had been notably diminished. The ‘97 convention resolved to ask the COP to include a reference to the Gospel in Word and Sacraments “in the next normal review of the WELS Mission Statement and Objectives.” (‘97 Proceedings, 114) We note with joy the synod’s desire to include evidence of its being a sacramental church in its statement of mission. We note with interest the synod’s acceptance of regular review and revision for the MOV as a matter of course. We heard from the Strategic Planning Primer that, with time, strategic planning becomes the organizational norm. It appears that, by the late ‘90s, that time had come in the WELS. The approaching new millennium instigated many changes, including some to the synod’s MOV.
A revision offered to the ‘99 convention included a new Objective, intended to “mobilize members for ministry.” We note that the SC presented the MOV revision with the comment that it was meant to provide “a strategic plan with established priorities”(‘99 BoRaM, 68) – something the ‘97 Convention had called for specifically. It is interesting to view the MOV as a statement of priorities. For example, one may note that, among the five objectives of the original MOV 2003+, attention to ministerial education held fifth place. When the ‘99 revision of the MOV added a new objective, it was inserted at the #5 spot, keeping ministerial education on the bottom at #6. This is inconsequential, unless one views the MOV as a statement of “established priorities.” It merits comment that the ‘99 convention, in accepting the MOV revision, once again expressed concern over the use of specific numeric goals in the Vision portion of the statement. The convention urged the SC “to reconsider the manner in which it uses goal numbers in the STUDY IT! and APPLY IT! portions of the proposed MOV statements.” (‘99 Proceedings, 47) Over the first decade of the MOV, the synod in convention had grown no more comfortable with number-specific goals. However, the

11

synod’s strategic planners also were no less committed to preserving the measurability of the synod’s Vision Statement. The numbers stayed, at least for the time being. Reporting in the 2001 BoRaM, the SC noted its efforts to solicit broad input from across the synod in regard to the MOV. In response to that input, the SC proposed the addition of three “challenging
opportunities” to the synod’s Vision Statement. The three were: “1) lead people to a passion for ALL the lost and equip them to reach these people; 2) focus ministerial education on outreach; and 3) individualize spiritual growth and personal witnessing.” (‘01 BoRaM, 5)
One might ask whether, among those three, individual spiritual growth and personal witnessing
might be a “challenge” that more appropriately falls under the purview of the local congregation, and of a local pastor who holds a call to serve believers individually and personally. Yet it was that third challenge that received the synod’s most specific attention, as the SC announced the appointment of “a Spiritual Growth Project Team” led by Pastor Bruce Becker that was to “identify issues to be addressed and prepare an action plan with grassroots involvement.” (‘01 BoRaM, 5) The Proceedings of the ‘01 convention do not indicate that the convention took any direct action regarding either the revision of the MOV or the SC’s spiritual growth initiative.
The Report to the Districts in 2002 drew attention to the work of the Mission Opportunity Task
Force - 2 (MOTF-2), information that came as a bit of a surprise to some in the WELS who had missed the activities of MOTF-1. The original Task Force (closely linked to the 1997 Synod Restructuring Committee) had contributed to the most recent round of administrative remodeling, focusing almost exclusively on the upper level of WELS leadership. The second round of work was intended to carry the restructuring down to what might be called our “middle management level,” affecting both synod and district structure. The report’s return to now-familiar refrains about the benefits of greater flexibility and the means to “respond quickly to changing circumstances and opportunities” (‘02 Report, 4) were predictable. More intriguing was the increased emphasis on the direct guidance and influence from the synod level for the members of WELS congregations across the synod. As a guiding principle, MOTF-2 stated the goal of encouraging “member ownership and participation” so that “WELS members embrace the WELS mission as their own.” The report further insisted that “ample and appropriate opportunities, at every level, for people to become involved need to be built into any administrative structure.” (‘02 Report, 4 - emphasis mine) These words represent a
recommendation for those at the synodical level of administration to do whatever possible to reach directly into local congregations of the WELS in order to seize the hearts and minds of WELS people and mobilize their involvement in the synod’s work. It may not have been the intention of the MOTF-2 planners, but one might be forgiven for seeing in their recommendations an effort to by-pass the normal channels of local congregation and local pastorate in order to minister to WELS people directly.

Such an interpretation would not have been out of step with the way that synodical officials were representing themselves and their work in other areas. For example, when planned giving counselors took the initiative to solicit special gifts from WELS people directly, and at times did so without conferring with local pastors or congregations, the WELS office of planned giving was known to defend such actions by voicing the understanding that the nature of the call to be a planned giving counselor was such that it was, in effect, a call to minister to individual WELS Christians directly. I can not say whether this view is reflected in the language of the planned giving counselor call document, or whether it is strictly a matter of interpretation. I mention it here only to illustrate that the traditional lines between synod and congregation were growing less distinct.

12

The final report of the MOTF-2 was originally to come before the WELS Convention in 2003.
However, the SC’s report to that gathering explained that the final work of MOTF-2 would instead be addressed to the districts in 2004. (NOTE: As it developed, no report from MOTF-2 reached the synod in 2004 either. However, the 2004 Report to the Districts does indicate that several recommendations of MOTF-2 – the formation of a Ministry Operations Team (MOT), the creation of a new area of ministry designated as “Mission Advancement,” and perhaps others – have simply been implemented.) At any rate, the ‘03 convention had plenty to consider as it addressed itself to the severe budgetary problems facing the synod and the heart-wrenching and unprecedented decisions that had been made to address them. The collective awareness of missionaries recalled and professors terminated cast a pall over the convention that, to this observer, seemed almost numbing in its effect. Two actions of longrange significance came out of that gathering. The first was the authorization of a study of the WELS preparatory school system “to evaluate the need for the number, size and organization of the preparatory
school system over against the continuing purpose and objectives of the Synod...” (‘03 Proceedings, 55) The second action was the establishment of “North American Outreach” as the synod’s chief priority for 2004-2005. Many of us may still be unclear as to exactly what “North American Outreach” means, but we have been made to understand that it is Job One.

The ‘03 convention also received the report of the Spiritual Growth Project Team formed by the SC in 2001. Two points of interest relevant to this study may be garnered from that report. First, it opens with its own Mission and Objectives Statement. Second, each of the Project Team’s objectives is stated in terms of how it will “help God’s people...” to pursue the goal of spiritual growth, or “assist and encourage God’s people to implement these strategies and processes in their individual lives of service.” (‘03 Proceedings, 84) In a vacuum, such expressions might earn no special interest, but in the context of the increasingly energetic efforts of synod-level offices to minister directly to WELS people, it is note-worthy that none of the Project Team’s goals speak of “helping WELS congregations” or of “working with WELS called workers.”

One final note about the 2003 convention. Many gathered here today will recall the notable array of memorials addressed to that convocation of the synod. More than a few of us may have been signers of one memorial or another. The purposes of those memorials were varied. They sought to clarify the authority of the SC, to affirm the objectives of the WELS as expressed in its Constitution, to establish missions and ministerial education as the synod’s chief priorities, to safe-guard the calls of missionaries and professors, and to oppose the practice of funding capital development at ministerial education schools through student fees... among other things. These assorted memorials may all have suffered from the unjust characterization of being weapons in a unified attack on Parish Services. They weren’t. Be that as it may, however, the memorials all died in committee. The convention elected instead to gather Parish Services in a loving embrace and declare it to be the division that “implements the majority of the synod’s objectives...” (‘03 Proceedings, 63)

Among those ill-fated memorials, I wish to recall a single “Resolved” that continues to express a
valid concern, one that is reinforced by a review of the history of the WELS MOV. It states:
Resolved: That the Michigan District recommends to our synod in convention a thorough review
of our Mission, Objectives, Vision statement, with a view toward differentiating between the work which we can and cannot do “as individuals, congregations and districts to support the Lord’s mission;” (‘03 BoRaM, 160)

13

The idea behind that single resolution merits far more than passing attention. It poses the
possibility that our Wisconsin Synod has, for more than a few years now, been engaged in the process of redefining itself. The redefinition has not been carried out in clear public view. It has not been addressed through proposition and public discussion. It has not been reflected in legislative action. There is reasonable question as to whether the redefinition has even been deliberate, or at least entirely so. But as one examines the application of strategic planning to the affairs of the WELS, as one recognizes the emphasis such planning models place on enhancing administrative flexibility and streamlining the decision-making process, as one witnesses the transformation of our synod’s administrative structure from one that employed a cumbersome but clear system of checks and balances to one that adapts and adopts ever more closely the corporate paradigm of a narrow pinnacle of decisionmaking authority at the top of the administrative pyramid, and as one takes note of the increasingly aggressive efforts to interface WELS planners and workers on the synod level with WELS people on the “grass roots” level without passing through the orderly channels of the local congregation and the local pastorate, one is strongly inclined to paraphrase the marketing slogan and observe, “This is not your
father’s Wisconsin Synod.”

IV. Reflection One: Quo Vadis WELS?

In his report to the convention in the year that the WELS MOV was first presented, President
Mischke took pains to explain that planning is biblical and that articulating a plan for our synod in specific terms is not the same as telling God what to do. He wrote, “Even though we do not know what will happen tomorrow, God still encourages planning, but always planning that makes God an essential part of the equation. So rather than defining for God what he should be doing, the statement (i.e. MOV 2000+) is submitted as a humble effort to sharpen our focus as a synod, to encourage faithfulness in our gospel proclamation in order to win the lost for Christ and to nurture believers for lives of service by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace. (‘89 Proceedings, 31) I can not imagine these comments being disputed among us, either then or now. Planning is good. Planning is godly. In a sense, a plan can be viewed as a prayer, one that expresses our needs, our wants, even our hopes as we understand them, but one that is always and only properly expressed in the context of, “Not my will, Lord, but yours be done.” With such planning we take no issue. Fifteen years ago did not mark the beginning of our synod’s efforts to plan. It did, however, mark the beginning of our efforts to plan in a certain way. It is that way – the strategic planning way – that we reflect on today.

SP, by design, is transformational. It is intended to change the organization that commits itself to the SP planning model. It is the contention of this paper that our Wisconsin Synod has been changed through its use of SP over the past decade and a half. To demonstrate this change we will consider five key assumptions of SP. Each will allow us the opportunity to ask, first, whether the assumption is appropriate to our synod’s work and, second, whether the assumption may be gaining acceptance in our synod.

14

1. Strategic Planning assumes top-down administration
Coming out of its background in the military and corporate worlds, SP was designed to work in
the context of a well-defined command structure and hierarchy. Admittedly, it highlights the need to move at least some decision-making down to lower levels of authority. It emphasizes the importance of communicating mission and vision broadly in order to foster a broad sense of ownership on all levels. Yet these very aspects of SP testify to its acknowledgment that real planning and real decision making originate at the top. As we will see in a moment, SP does not contest that reality; in fact, it exalts it. SP simply argues for creating a sense that everyone is involved in the process, while reserving real authority for those in top leadership positions.
Such top-down administration is not consistent with the work of the church. In the church, our
vertical relationship is with God. Our relationship with one another is horizontal. Whether it is the pastor relating to his flock or the synod leader relating to the congregations of the synod, all stand together on a level plain and their work is done together, a mutual effort in service to God. This, in fact, is the attitude and understanding that I have seen demonstrated most often by our synod’s leaders. They do not aspire to be “the top of the pyramid.” They only seek to serve the role to which God has called them, as do we all.

However, if one considers how our WELS administration has changed over the past fifteen years, it is impossible not to recognize how the horizontal is being replaced by the vertical. More and more authority to influence decisions, if not to actually make them, has been placed into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Our President is now the synod’s CEO “with broad decision-making authority.” (Mueller, MOT) Financial exigencies are justifying a proposal to eliminate much of “middle management” on both synod and district levels, leaving the bulk of the planning and deciding to a small group of advisors cloistered together in the confines of the Synod Administration Building. Those seven or eight men on the Ministry Operations Team (MOT), though lacking in constitutional standing and empowered to act only in an advisory capacity, yet have the chance to review nearly all the major business of the synod. They are able to form their attitudes toward those issues and shape the way they will be presented, well before they are ever brought to the Synodical Council. Doing this is not exceeding the MOT’s authority; it is what the SC has asked the MOT to do. Once issues reach the SC, that body is empowered to dispose of them in such a way that most of the major business of the WELS never reaches the synod in convention until it is already a fait accompli. And the convention seldom has the opportunity truly to act as “the legislative body of the synod,” since the press of crowded convention agendas severely limits public debate of complex issues and allows important ideas to die in committee. We might be more inclined to recognize all this as a serious problem if it did not conform entirely to the SP model we have adopted. By SP standards, we are doing just fine, things are as they should be. But how much have we lost in terms of collegiality, of confidence in our leadership, and of commitment to “preserving the unity of the Spirit?”

2. Strategic Planning assumes speed is a virtue and flexibility is an end in itself.
SP demands the ability to respond quickly to a quickly changing environment. It also commands
the right to adjust to whatever the marketplace may want. This is a context that fits the commercial world. If a sale is the ultimate goal, then the seller may well be ready to grab the customer by the lapels and scream, “What do you want me to be. I can be anything you want.” That’s hyperbole, I admit, but it illustrates the crassness of the metaphor that compares Gospel ministry to salesmanship and church

15

management to marketing. That “paradigm” fails in many respects. For example, both church history and ministry experience argue against the virtues of speed and rapid change in dealing with God’s people. For a very long time now, the church has been served well by the shepherd, rather than the salesman, paradigm. In his grace, God calls us unworthy sinners to serve as his under-shepherds, urging us to act in faith and love to tend that portion of his flock that the Savior places under our care. In this work, it doesn’t take long to learn the hazards of trying to lead our flock from a position too far out in front of them, or of moving so quickly to make changes that our sheep get confused or lost. A steady pace, an even hand, a watchful eye and a loving heart, demonstrated best by the Good Shepherd himself, still represent the best approach for leadership by under-shepherds. Yet the influence of SP seems to have fostered a spirit of impatience among at least some of our leaders. We’ve heard them chafe at having to instruct those who do not share their vision. They insist that the best way to deal with such “Monday morning quarterbacks who’ll critique with perfect clarity what proactive leaders do” is that one “largely ignore them.” (Kelm, 2) We’ve heard them grouse about having to work under the constraints of our synod’s agonizingly slow democratic system, declaring, “We are choking on gristly chunks of overdone and obsolete organizational structure. ...We are hamstrung trying to be three things at the same time: a national, even global denomination with a central administration, a regional church with district autonomy, and independent local congregations. ...in a changing world, the opportunities come and go much more quickly than that and call for a nimble response by any organization of human endeavor, including churches.” (Nelson, 6)
The men who write such words and think such thoughts are bright, gifted, and hard-working; they have given and are giving their best efforts and ideas in service to our synod. But they are not speaking like shepherds. They are speaking like those who have been laboring in the context of SP for a long time... too long.

3. Strategic Planning assumes that vision is motive.
The reason that every SP model begins with the articulation of a vision is that the vision is what is to keep everything else on track and moving forward. It is the oasis just over the next sand dune that keeps the thirsty man plodding across the desert. It doesn’t even matter so much if that oasis is a mirage, just as long as the thirsty man (and everyone who follows him) believes it to be real and reachable. I have never heard any synod leader suggest that our WELS Vision is the motive for what we do as Christians. I don’t expect to ever hear it. We all understand that our motivation comes, not from what may happen in the future, but from what has already happened – once, for all, finished and perfect – in the past. Not what we may yet do, but what Christ Jesus has already done is our sole motive. Christ’s love – seen in his loving life and loving death – is what compels us. So why do we seek to plan our work using a tool that does not fit the job? SP glories in goalmotivation. We recognize it as a confusion of law and gospel. When we hold out our goals – or our “vision” – as an inducement to keep pressing forward, we violate Dr. Walther’s Thesis XXIII: “The Word of God is not rightly divided... when an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.” (Walther, 4) We know better than that. We know how to motivate with the Gospel. But if we immerse ourselves in SP thinking day after day, the temptation is going to be strong for us to fix our eyes, not on Jesus, but on some distant vision. A recent administration questionnaire aimed at updating our WELS

16

Vision Statement offered these words: “We can have a vision for the future because vision is a function of the heart. Vision flows out of faith in the promises of our God and is always framed within the will of God. Vision doesn’t look backward. It looks ahead. It rarely means regaining what we’ve had in the past. It means moving forward into the future to gain what we’ve never had.” (WELS 2020 Vision, 1) To gain what we’ve never had? Is that where we want our synodical “eyes” fixed?

4. Strategic Planning assumes loss is failure.
Sell the widget. If the widget does not sell, change the salesman, change the sales pitch, or
change the widget. These are the laws of the marketplace. SP was designed to serve them. It does not acknowledge a scenario in which “no sale” is a gain. As Christ’s people, we certainly do not aspire to loss. We do not plan for failure. But God’s Word gives us ample reason to realize that our best and most faithful efforts may still produce what the world views as a flop. That fact does not condemn either the messenger or his message, the servant or his service. The world will hate us more than it loves us; it hated Jesus first. The seed we scatter will not always fall on good ground. The wheat in our fields will not always escape the tares. The Word we proclaim will always achieve God’s purpose, but not always our own. And those truths are blessings. Our “failures” keep us humble. Our “failures” drive us back into the Word. Our “failures” force us to lean on our Lord, who alone is our Strength and our Salvation. Our “failures” cause us to rejoice in him who alone is our Success. Our “failures” keep us firmly bound to the Cross in this life, trusting that our only true and lasting Crown awaits us in the life to come. Those who lead us know these truths and share their comfort with us. Yet they have consented to immerse themselves in an environment that insists that gain is good and loss is bad, that a church is only
alive if it is growing and plans are only valid if they succeed. They are at ease telling us: “Vision is not about what we think the WELS should be or could be, but what, under God, it will be. ...We set a vision for the future, confident of God’s blessing on it and our commitment to it.” (Vision 2020, 2) God has not promised to prosper our visions. He has not pledged that what we see will be. SP would applaud such a clear sense of direction, but we are being led astray when we are told to commit ourselves to what we have envisioned rather than to what God has promised.

5. Strategic Planning assumes outcome as goal.
Having been designed for the battlefield or the market place, it is no surprise that SP views a positive outcome – victory, profit, growth – as the only acceptable goal. That is why SP demands measurable progress, so that it can be ensured that the desired outcome is at least being approached if not achieved. SP can not accept that the process can be the product. But in Christ’s church, we do accept that. In fact, we insist upon it. Ministry is not making sausages. It is faithful, patient, loving service to God’s people who, in this world, will never be finished
products. Ministry is all about the process. It has to be. The child we teach today may have forgotten the lesson tomorrow. The irate husband we calm tonight may be cranky again in the morning. The family that loves us at Grampa’s funeral may find reason to hate us at Junior’s wedding. It’s not that some members in our congregations are fruitful branches and others are dead wood. It’s that any one of them could be either the first or the second, depending on the day and the hour. So how do we conduct ministry among such sinners. We begin by recognizing ourselves as one

17

of them. Then we apply the Law and the Gospel, first to ourselves and then to our people. We labor to follow Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to preach the Word, to be prepared in season and out of season, to correct, rebuke and encourage, to keep our heads in all situations, to endure hardship, to do the work of an evangelist, to discharge all the duties of our ministry. Then we trust God to do all we can not. And, if we’re smart, we don’t get hung up on results. Ministry to sinners by sinners can’t afford to be outcome-based. An eyes-on-the-prize approach to planning only sets up God’s servants – both on the local and the synodical level – for needless stress, and robs them of the real joy God intends us to find in our work. Perhaps there are pastors in the WELS for whom “just preach the Gospel” is an easy excuse to do less than they could or should in their ministries. I personally haven’t met any. But even if they are out there, and even if all they are doing is preaching the Gospel, then they are serving God’s plans even if they don’t fit into ours. You may judge differently, but my take, as I assess these key aspects of SP in the context of our synod’s work, is that SP – as it has been expressed in our WELS MOV and as it is practiced in our WELS administration – does not well suit our synod or its needs. I do not doubt the good intentions of those who led the synod down the SP path, nor do I question the faithfulness of those leaders who continue to try to make the SP model fit the synod’s work. Their efforts have been sincere and God has brought good from them. But the synod is an army only by metaphor and it is a business only by limited necessity. Its essence is neither. Synod is church, but under SP it hasn’t been acting much like it. As a result, in our beloved WELS the rift between leaders and followers has widened, the morale of called workers has plummeted, the support for the work of the synod has faded, and the purpose of the synod has become
distressingly muddled. Go back and read the Vision for the synod as first presented in 1989. There is no escaping the fact that, as a synod, we are further from that point today then we were fifteen years ago. Do we need more evidence than that to convince us that the SP approach isn’t right for the WELS? If we do, there is more. As noted earlier, the SC intends that the WELS MOV serve to provide our synod “a strategic plan with established priorities.” Yet in the 2003 round of budget cutbacks, the SC chose to make budget cuts proportionately across the divisions because it felt there was no way to make cuts on a priority basis. It could not determine funding priorities since all budgetary programs had been synod-mandated. More recently, as financial problems have persisted, it has become evident that some method of budgetary triage must be found. To address the need, the SC has appointed a committee to determine the so-called “core operations” of the synod. We have been using SP for a decade and half, but our leadership is unsure of our priorities and it needs further committee spadework to determine our core operations. After fifteen years, SP still leaves us struggling with the question Quo vadis, WELS?. Does this sound like a system that is serving us well?

V. Review Two: Mission
The title of this paper as first published on the “Issues in WELS” web site was Comparing the
WELS MOV to Scripture. You will have noticed that I haven’t really done that yet and, for those who have been waiting patiently, I’m sorry – I’m not going to. I have two reasons. First, there have been

18

multiple versions of the MOV and, if things continue as they have been, there may be multiple more. I would not know which version to compare, and even if I chose the most recent version, it could be different tomorrow. Second, the MOV is a reasonably long document. Comparing the entire thing to Scripture would mean that we probably wouldn’t make it to lunch today, and maybe not supper either. One look at me will tell you I don’t like to miss meals. However, if you will permit me to tighten the spotlight a bit, I believe there is something to be
gained by training the beam more narrowly just on our synod’s Mission Statement. I intend to be selective even in considering the Statement in order to highlight points I believe are relevant to this study. We have all come to know our WELS Mission Statement quite well; perhaps some of us even by heart:

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.

We recognize these words for what they claim to be, that is, a statement of the mission of the
WELS. They were not written to express the mission of the Holy Christian Church or even of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. It they were, we might have less reason to question the appropriateness of what the words say and how they say it. The words speak for the WELS, however, and that is how we must read them. As we do, there are three particular phrases in our Mission Statement to which I would like to give focused attention.

1. As men, women, and children united in faith and worship...
Let it not go unsaid that we all fully recognize that our synod is “church.” Unlike other church
bodies, we give no special standing to the local congregation; we recognize it along with the synod as examples of the various forms that “church” may take. I know of no serious departure among us from what Profs. Schuetze and Habeck have explained very succinctly in The Shepherd Under Christ:

By their confession to the marks of the church, the gospel in Word and sacrament, such groups, whether large or small, whether locally limited like a congregation or reaching out nation-wide like a synod, are called churches because in them the una sancta is present. Thus in its essential nature the synod is a body of Christians which is recognized as a church by its interest in and confession to the gospel. (Schuetze/Habeck, 354)

However, as the same source goes on immediately to explain,
This essential nature of the synod needs to be distinguished from the synod as a corporate body, even as these two must be distinguished in the case of a local congregation. The organizational form a synod receives is determined by its members in Christian liberty. The Lord has imposed no specific forms on his New Testament church. A synod’s corporate, organizational structure, even as that of a local congregation, will be set up to enable it best to fulfill its purpose in the world. (354) The membership of the WELS, as defined by its Constitution, “shall consist of all congregations, pastors and male teachers who shall have joined the synod through their respective districts.” (Act III, Sec 1) Furthermore, membership is restricted to congregations, pastors and male teachers who enjoy agreement in doctrine and practice. (Sec. 3) The decision to define synodical membership in this way was not arbitrary. It reflects and applies doctrines of Scripture that our synod holds in high regard,

19

including those of the divine call, of God’s appointed roles for man and woman, and of our synod’s understanding of the twin doctrines of church and ministry. It by no means is intended to limit or dilute the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers, but rather it acknowledges that the exercise of that priesthood may not be the same for every believing man, woman and child in every situation. This is not to suggest that it is wrong to call the members of the synod’s constituent congregations also members of the WELS.

“The individual Christian in a congregation is a member of the synod through his congregation, whereas pastors and male teachers join as members directly.”
(Schuetze/Habeck, 355)

However, when speaking of the work, or mission, of the synod, it is much clearer to do so in the context of its constituent membership of congregations. As stated, our synod’s organizational structure has been set up, in Christian freedom, to allow it best to fulfill its purpose. The practical purpose of the synod is

“to do that work of the church which cannot be done by one congregation alone or that can be done better by a larger body. The Christians, gathered first in congregations, will determine in what areas that is the case.”
(Schuetze/Habeck, 354)

That is to say, the work WELS Christians can do as congregations they do in and through their
congregations. The work WELS Christians do as a synod is not, or ought not be, congregational work. Rather, it is that work that can only be done, or is done best by a union of congregations acting together, that is, by a synod. The mission of the synod represents that sort of work.
To express the mission of the WELS in terms that define that body as “men, women and
children united in faith and worship” invites the understanding that the synod is actually just one large congregation. To say that would be to misrepresent the synod and its purpose. It would also invite the further misunderstanding that those who are called to serve as officials of the synod are being asked to serve as shepherds of the WELS flock, as pastors to all those men, women and children united in faith a and worship. Such thinking is a confusion of Scripture’s teaching on the ministry and, if put into practice, risks violating the doctrine of the call. We are each to serve as shepherds of that flock over which God, by the call he issued through his people, has made us overseers. (1 Pe 5:2) To intrude on the flocks of other shepherds, to meddle in the ministries of brother pastors, is to promote disorder and sow seeds of confusion. I don’t believe that any of our leaders intends to violate good order, nor do I believe that our Mission Statement was written to open a door for them to do so. But, inadvertently, the door has been left ajar and some things are slipping through. For example, when did our synod president become the
“pastor’s pastor?” My understanding is that my circuit pastor is my pastor. His pastor is the district president. Am I mistaken? Or how, exactly, is unity and good order in the synod served by having congregation members going directly to WELS officials to converse on synod issues or have questions of faith answered via Internet blogs and web site Q&A pages? For that matter, is greater unity or greater confusion created as WELS administrative divisions open channel after channel of direct contact with individual congregation members, through the mail, through the Internet, through a plethora of workshops, seminars, symposiums, and schools of ( you fill in the blank ), and, yes, on occasion through personal visits? Even in this instant information age, can’t we find ways to do our synod work together in a way that retains the integrity of our congregational structure. Can we not do the synod’s business while still respecting the unique call a local pastor holds to shepherd his flock and recognizing, even utilizing, the unique ability that shepherd has to determine what is useful fodder for his flock and what, though it
may be wholesome food for others, may not feed his flock well?

20

I suspect we can’t or won’t if we view our synod as a large congregation. We are more likely
to do so if we continue to see and describe our synod as our Constitution does, as a confederation of individual congregations, served by individual pastors and teachers, who choose in Christian freedom to unite in fellowship for the purpose of doing together work they can not do apart, work that they – the pastors, teachers and congregation representatives – will determine as they act in convention to “establish, re-view and amend the policies and the direction of the synod in pursuit of its mission...” (Act VIII, Sec 2)

2. ...the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod exists to make disciples throughout the world for time and for eternity...

Could anyone possibly criticize the WELS for taking its Mission Statement from the words of
Jesus’ Great Commission? I don’t know... maybe. But that isn’t what this paper is going to do. Rather, this critique will express the view that we did not take enough from the Great Commission and what we did take is neither accurate nor abundantly clear. For the record, let us acknowledge that our Lord’s Great Commission is not limited to those verses found at the close of Matthew’s gospel. The Savior’s command to his followers to be proclaimers of his Word is one he made multiple times, in multiple places, and his words in this regard can be found in all the Gospel and Acts. Our attention to Matthew 28 here is simply due to the fact that it is the most
direct source of the words in our Mission Statement. The crux of the problem we have, of course, is that word “disciple.” There simply is no clear consensus, in our circles or outside them, as to what that word means. Is a “disciple” a learner? A follower? An adherent? A believer? A believer who exhibits a certain type of behavior or who leads a certain type of life? Any of these understandings except, perhaps, the last one has the support of all the major lexicons. You will also find advocates for all these understandings, and various mixtures thereof, in the limited literature produced among us, much of it done by highly capable and respected scholars.
In my research on this matter, I found three works to be of particular value. They include the
exegetical brief by former WLS professor, David Kuske; a study of the Great Commission delivered in the Michigan District by former pastor Tom Bartz; and the previously-mentioned 1987 convention essay by former WLS president, David Valleskey. None of these works is a complete treatment of the subject, none in my view is perfect, but all offer valuable insights. I would encourage that, with proper permission, all three be posted on our Issues in WELS web site under the Items of Interest heading. This paper is not meant to be an exegetical study. However, I believe our understanding of our Lord’s commission is so central to the issues we are considering in this paper that I beg the time to take a closer look. To begin with, I believe there is no dispute among us that a mathetes – a disciple – is a learner. The word indicates one who attaches himself to a rabbi, a teacher or a master in order to acquire some sort of learning – a body of doctrine or a school of philosophy or a set of skills. A disciple learns. But the word, when used in the sense of being a disciple of Jesus, also means something more. To begin with, the relationship between Jesus and his disciples is unique. That unique aspect is indicated in our Lord’s words in John 15:16 where he told his disciples: You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit -- fruit that will last. Jesus chose his disciples. He called them. This was unique. Dr. Martin Franzmann writes:

21

In rabbinical circles the initiative in discipleship lay with the disciples. ‘Take to yourself a teacher’ is the advice given to the aspiring disciple by a Jewish teacher of pre-Christian times.
We have no record of a call issued by a Jewish rabbi to a disciple in all rabbinic literature.... What in Judaism was the pious duty of the disciple is here (in the Gospels) the sovereign act of the Master.
(Cited in Valleskey, 227)

That unique aspect of the Lord’s call is still true of those who are Jesus’ disciples today. As
President Valleskey comments,

“We become disciples not by our own reason or strength, but by the Holy Spirit’s call through the gospel.”
(Valleskey, 227)

Clearly, President Valleskey comes down on the side of understanding “disciple” as “believer.”
Prof. Kuske stops just short of that. However, he does determine that a disciple is more than just one to whom instruction has been imparted; he is also one on whose life that instruction has had an effect. This comes very near to saying that a disciple of Jesus is one who not only has been taught the Gospel but who also has been transformed -- or converted -- by it. Former pastor Bartz demurs from this view, arguing that God would not give to mortal men a task of which we are not capable, namely, “making believers.” He prefers to retain the simplest understanding of mathetes, that is, as “a learner,” and to understand Jesus’ command in Matthew to be “make a learner of all the nations.” He offers a persuasive case. Of even greater value in the Bartz study, however, is the clear way in which he explains how the verb in Matthew 28:19 – matheteuzete – is often misrepresented so as to create a direct object where there is none and then ignore the direct object that is there. Bartz insists that we must recognize, if we are to work with the familiar NIV translation of the verse at all, that the verb matheteuzete does not mean “make disciples” but rather “make disciples of.” His point is that “nations” is the direct object of the verb, not “disciples.” His point is valid, whether or not one agrees with the rest of his interpretation. The main verb Jesus chose to use in this verse is transitive and its object is panta ta ethne. What Jesus commands us to do, we are to do not just in or, as our Statement says, throughout, but to all the nations. This might seem to argue for the Bartz understanding of “disciple” since Jesus certainly wasn’t commanding us to convert all the nations in order to make them all believers. Make “learners” of all the nations – that sounds more reasonable, more reachable. I suspect, however, that we unfairly limit the scope of our Savior’s words if we seek a commission that is within our reach. There is a reason that Jesus attended his command with his promise, “Surely, I will be with you always, to the very end of the age.” The Lord knew that what he was asking his people to do could not be done by them alone. Without his presence and blessing, their work – and ours – would be futile. In the light of our Lord’s reassuring promise, I can live with understanding matheteuzete panta ta ethne as “make believers of all the nations,” just as long as we always clearly link that command to the participles that follow it by which Jesus tells us how sinners like us can possibly do what he is commanding. Baptidzantes (“baptizing”) and didoskontes (“teaching”) refer to the administration of the Means of Grace, the Gospel in Word and sacrament. As God’s sinful but forgiven servants throughout the ages and across the continents continue to administer those means of God’s grace, the Holy Spirit continues to work and believers continue to be made. The servants don’t make them; the Spirit does. But we servants can not predict whose heart will hear and answer the Savior’s Gospel call, so our task is to issue that Gospel call to all the nations, as if we fully expect that all the nations will be made believers. Then our task is to trust that our Savior, who is with us always, will do that which we are unable to do. President Valleskey’s paper goes on to explain his view that Jesus’ words in Matthew 28 commission us to do more than just call people with the Gospel to learn and to believe. He writes:

22

People become disciples through baptism or through teaching. But that is not the end of the matter. Jesus doesn’t say, “Make believers of all nations.” He says, “Make disciples of all nations.” There is a certain difference between the two words. The latter word includes and adds to the thought of the former. A disciples is a believer; but a disciple is also a learner. One’s learning doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, end with baptism or after being taught the bare essentials of the Word of God.
(Valleskey, 228-9)

The basis for this argument is the phrase from Mt 28:20, didoskontes autous terein panta hosa
enetailamen himin, translated by the NIV as “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” President Valleskey feels that thus, in the Great Commission, “the church receives its charter not just for evangelizing all the nations of the earth but for discipling, or nurturing, those who have been evangelized.” (Valleskey, 229)

This is an attractive exposition of the verse, and may account for the way that our Mission
Statement weaves together “winning the lost” and “nurturing believers.” However, this understanding asks us to accept that the autous that is the object of didoskontes refers to different people than does the autous that is the object of baptidzantes. Our baptizing is for all, but our teaching is only for believers? I’m no master grammarian, but I don’t think that works out right. I believe the key to this portion of the Commission is the word terein. The NIV translates it “obey.” That appears to support the understanding that part of our commission is to nurture sanctification, to promote obedient lives. The problem is, “obey” is a poor translation. More commonly, tereo means “hold, keep, preserve.” No, it isn’t the same word Jesus used to tell those who had believed him, ‘If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.” (Jn 8:31) The verb there is meneo – “to continue in, hold to.” But the thought seems to be very much the same in both places. Jesus wants those he has called to faith to continue in faith. That is only possible when believers hold, keep, preserve, continue in, hang on to the Word, because the Spirit only works through that Word, only that Word is God’s power for salvation, faith only comes from hearing that Word. Jesus’ Commission commands us to teach all the nations to hold to everything he has commanded. No omissions, no compromises, no soft pedaling the Law, no qualifying the Gospel, no preaching only the funny stories and fuzzy anecdotes that people’s itching ears want to hear. Teach it all – the whole counsel of God. That’s what “preach the Gospel” means to anyone who actually understands it. That’s what it means here in Matthew and in the other Gospels and in Acts. That’s what it means, too, when Paul, during
Timothy’s ministerial education, told him with great solemnity:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage -- with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
(2 Tim 4:1-5)

Paul ended that charge to Timothy right where he began it. There is no essential difference
between telling Timothy to “discharge all the duties of your ministry” and telling him to “preach the Word.” The two are one and the same. Anyone who sees “just preach the Gospel” as an excuse to be

23

lazy doesn’t get it. It’s possible that those who claim “just preach the Gospel” is being used among us as an excuse to be lazy really don’t get it either. I have never heard of a single WELS pastor, ever, who understands “just preach the Gospel” to mean “just preach your twenty minutes on Sunday morning, then spend the rest of the week in your easy chair or in front of your computer or on the golf course because it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do the rest.” “Preach the Gospel” is a convenient slogan, to be sure, but it is convenient in the sense that justifies the
prominent place it has had on the wall of the WLS chapel for many years. It is a short-hand reminder that our work is never about ourselves, our message is never our own, and the fruits of our labors are never produced by our own hands. It is a reminder that what God’s call to the ministry entrusts to us is his precious message of reconciliation, a treasure that deserves the very best efforts we jars of clay can give to hold and keep it. And it is a reminder that, no matter how clever or witty, how creative or innovative, how timely, popular or apparently effective our efforts may be, if they fail to keep the Gospel front and center then they are wasted efforts; and no matter how awkward or clumsy, how trite or shop-worn, how dated, unpopular or apparently ineffective our efforts may seem, if they keep that Gospel front and center, then our labor in the Lord is not in vain. The Savior’s commission calls us and all believers to “preach the Gospel” in that sense. We understand that commission best when we view in the light of these inspired words of Paul: All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf:

Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:18-21)

By his gift of forgiveness through his life and death, our Savior has reconciled us, brought us back into a positive relationship with our God again, so that we might suitably serve as God’s ambassadors. That reconciliation is essential to the work. Master and ambassador must be one in mind and heart, for an ambassador must be able to speak the Master’s words in the Master’s name. However, even as ambassadors speak for their Master, it is self-evident that the real power to bring about the desired result lies in the Master and in his Word, not in the ambassadors or their humble efforts. That fact is what makes it possible for ambassadors to speak with boldness and confidence before any audience -- because their words are not
their own. Through them, the Master speaks. Ambassadors need to remember that. That’s why our Lord began his commission in Matthew’s account by declaring “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” and he ended it with his gracious assurance that he will be with his ambassadors “to the very end of the age.” What falls between that declaration and that pledge can only be understood by keeping the focus on the One who alone provides the power and the promise. But that focus can be clouded if the Commission is understood to require both “proclamation” and “nurture” and then the emphasis is shifted from what God does through his Word to what we do with that Word. Consider two quotes from a bible study on leadership taken from the Parish Services publication Five Six-Lesson Bible Studies for Lutheran Parish Leaders. A lesson on “Jesus’ Mission: Saving the Lost” applies Mt 28:19-20 in much the same way as does President Valleskey. In doing so, it teaches:

“Jesus made outreach and nurture the twin elements of carrying out his work in the great commission of Mt 24 28:19-20. He said we should make disciples (that’s our mission), by baptizing (bringing them to faith) and by teaching everything he commanded (nurturing their faith and preparing them to go in his name).”

On the same page, the study defines the ‘nurture,’ phase of carrying out our Lord’s commission, saying:

“Nurture is taking care of those who have been brought to faith and causing their faith to grow.”
(Kelm, Jesus’ Mission, 22 - emphasis added)

Am I being uncharitable in sensing a subtle shift in emphasis in the words I have italicized? I
don’t suggest that it is intentional, but it is there – a shift from what God does through his Word to what we do with it. It is the sort of shift that likes to make “disciple” a verb, that prefers to talk less about what Christians believe and more about how Christians behave, that tends to take for granted what Jesus has done for us in order to give more attention to what Jesus is doing in us. It can easily become a shift away from the confident preaching of the Gospel and toward the expedient preaching of the Law. It is a shift we in the WELS will want to make every effort to avoid. So... what has all this to do with our Mission Statement. Four things: First, if we wish to paraphrase the Great Commission in our statement, then paraphrasing Matthew 28:19 is probably a poor choice. You just heard the Valleskey, Kuske, Bartz and Manthey takes on that verse and you may not have been 100% comfortable with any of them. That only serves to demonstrate that there is no clear consensus among us about how that verse, and especially matheteuzete, is to be understood. The Mission Statement of the synod is to speak for the synod. It should do so clearly. If a Great Commission paraphrase is a must, then Mark’s “preach the Good News” or “you will be my witnesses” from Acts 1 would be far less vulnerable to misunderstanding and misapplication. (Cf. Appendix B)

Second, if we are determined to use Matthew 28:19, then let’s use it accurately. “Make disciples
throughout the world” is not what Jesus said. It isn’t what we should be saying either.

Third, “make disciples... for time and for eternity” just doesn’t track. If we understand a
“disciple” to be only a learner and not a believer, then discipleship isn’t for eternity. Without faith, it ends at death. But if we understand a disciple to be a believer, then that’s not for eternity either. Once Jesus draws us to his side in heaven’s eternal mansions, it will no longer be necessary for us to live by faith and not by sight. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. When we no longer hope but have, we will no longer need to believe for, like Job, we will see.

Fourth, and most important – whatever language we use to state our mission, we need to bend
over backwards to be clear in distinguishing between what is our work and what is God’s. We can’t assume we will all just do that naturally, because our nature is to get it wrong. We need to study God’s Word and seek the guidance of his Spirit to make very sure we get it right.

3. ...and to nurture believers for lives of Christian service...
My comments on the second phrase above are not meant to suggest that I dispute the importance of the work of “nurturing” believers, or even that I minimize the significance of that work for the mission of our synod. It is essential, however, that we understand “nurture” in the sense that President Valleskey expresses it in one particularly winsome portion of that above-mentioned paper, where he writes:
It is the Holy Spirit who carries out this nurturing work, and he does it through the Scriptures. In 2 Timothy 3 the Apostle Paul reminds Timothy and us that the God-breathed Scriptures are “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Scriptures “thoroughly equip” disciples. (230)

25

President Valleskey’s words and Paul’s are useful to remember when we find ourselves repeatedly being reminded that it is the pastor’s main work to equip the saints. How only is that work carried out? By preaching the Word! While I support the vital importance of this work, I question the appropriateness of claiming it as the mission of the synod. The preaching and teaching of the Word, the administration of the Means of Grace, and most certainly the application of the same to the lives of individual believers in ways that nurture them spiritually, is the work of the local pastor as he ministers to his people. In a narrower scope, it is the work of the teacher as he or she ministers to the lambs and sheep in our schools. This is the work
of Seelsorge, of care for souls. It is individual, not corporate. It is local, not synodical.
Is it possible for the synod, “by printing, publishing, purchasing, selling, and disseminating
literature that maintains Lutheran doctrine and practice” and “by furnishing appropriate literature for parish schools, Sunday schools, missions, institutions, and churches” (Art IV, (d) & (e)) to offer support and provide resources for this nurturing work? Of course, yes. But that does not mean that the synod can claim the work of nurturing as its own, any more than the man who sold Shakespeare his ink and quills could claim his work was writing plays. I would suggest that the closing phrase of our Mission Statement represents a confusion of the roles of congregation and synod, one that we have had cause to mention more than a few times in this paper. I am convinced that both our synod and our congregations would be better served by clarifying these roles, and then by conducting our affairs in ways that show that we treasure and respect them.

VI. Reflection Two: Toward a Clearer Sense of Purpose

The synod administrators who were kind enough to respond to my request for input all indicated at least some measure of misgiving about the MOV, yet all seemed, on balance, to find it a valuable tool. Most admitted at least some discomfort with the term “vision,” noting that it can easily be misunderstood. Several responders indicated a drawback of the MOV is that the guidance it gives is only “broad stroke,” and so it isn’t always of great value when the time comes to make administrative choices. One responder cited a lack of prioritization of the elements of the MOV, and of a sense of comparative time-frame. President Gurgel admitted the potential drawback that can be associated with any human document, that is, that it be given more weight than it merits. He writes,

“There is always danger in human documents or activities even when they are God-directed. God’s OT people converted the brazen serpent into an idol. We would do the same if we convert any human document into a divine decree.”
(Gurgel, MOV)

Nearly all the responders emphasized the chief value of the MOV to be its clear focus. Again,
President Gurgel comments,

“(The MOV) is a useful document since it was received by the synod as an indication of our resolve to be about the Savior’s business of reaching out with the proclamation of the Gospel.”
(Gurgel, MOV)

The comments of nearly all the responders were brief and very general, but they indicate what has been suggested several times in this paper, namely, that our leaders share a clear and biblical understanding of what the mission of Christ’s church on earth should be, and are sincere in their desire to serve in a way that will help the WELS carry forward that mission. The aim of this paper has not been to question or critique those intentions.

26

What the comments of President Gurgel, Vice President Mueller and the other responders do not indicate, however, is any sense of concern about how our synod and their administration of it may have been changed by the approach to planning and decision-making that has been central to our synod’s work for the past fifteen years. If I read their comments accurately, all would acknowledge that change has taken place but most would suggest that the change has been for the better. If this paper has not succeeded in persuading you to accept its central premise – that our synod’s use of SP methods has contributed to a gradual but very real re-definition of the role and purpose of the WELS, so that it now functions more like a large congregation than like a confederation of congregations – then you may well share the positive opinion of our leaders about the MOV. I hesitate to disagree with them. But, hesitantly, I do.

Consider Article IV - Object of our WELS Constitution that officially defines the purpose of our
synod:

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.

Now turn to Appendix A and the 2003 revision of the WELS MOV. Perhaps the first thing you
will notice is that the numbers are gone. With this latest revision, the decision was made to bow to the oftexpressed concerns of our conventions and remove the specific numeric goals from the Vision portion of the statement. This is a positive step. But look closer. Compare the MOV’s objectives to the five from our Constitution cited above. How many of them sound like the work of a confederation of congregations? How many of them sound like work done within a congregation? Now scan the bullet-points in the Vision section. How many points of our synodical vision fit under one of the five constitution objectives cited above. By contrast, how many of them again sound like work best suited to a local congregation? Focus parents on nurturing
preschoolers… Assist each other to love one another and use our spiritual gifts… Involve people in ministry with the Word… None of these things can be done without the Means of Grace. It is the local pastor, the local teacher who holds the call to bring those means to bear on people’s lives. The synod has important work to do, but that isn’t it.

If you can remember all the way back to p.5 of this paper, then you may recall a comment that
VP Mueller made in his summary of the history of the MOV. He said that at the initial and formative Oconomowoc meeting, “the unanimous perception was that the synod was weak because its constituent congregations were weak.” (Mueller, MOV) It is hard to imagine that such unanimity of opinion could not have led to a consensus belief that the way to strengthen the synod was to strengthen its congregations. Certainly not coincidentally, that is where the synod’s administration began to focus its energies. Mueller notes that “out of that meeting also came the restructuring which initiated Parish Services.” And now,

27

fifteen years later, Parish Services is lauded by our convention as the division that “implements the majority of the synod’s objectives...” (‘03 Proceedings, 63)
There is no mystery to why our Synod is where it is today. We have gone where we have been led. Our leaders may not have intended to bring us to this point, but the arrows that point the way have been right in front of all of us the whole time. The language of our Mission Statement is a clear departure from the language of our Constitution, and it clearly lays claim to work regularly considered to be that of the local congregation. The Objectives express a work outline that gives far more attention to congregational work than to the sort of synodical activity Article IV describes. And the Vision, as often as it has been revised, has always had the faith-lives of individual WELS Christians clearly in its sights. It is hard to escape the fact that this is the WELS we have become. But we must ask ourselves, is this the WELS we want to be? As a synod, do we wish to continue doing the work of the local pastor, the local teacher, the local congregation to an ever greater degree? Is it beneficial for us to do so? Can we afford to do so?
Or may there be benefit in stepping back, re-assessing both the role of the synod and the role of the local congregation – and of circuits, conferences, districts, and other such groupings of the church, for that matter – so that we may regain a clearer sense of the purpose for which each of these groupings exists. The Doctrinal Statements of the WELS in its Theses on the Church and Ministry makes the following point:

4. The specific forms in which believers group themselves together for the fellowship and
work of the Church, the specific forms in which they arrange for the use of the means of grace in
public worship, the specific forms in which they establish the public ministry, have not been
prescribed by the Lord to His New Testament Church. ...
...As the Holy Spirit leads Christians to group themselves together in Jesus’ name (Jesus’
name is his Gospel revelation), He always constrains them to do so in an orderly manner (1 Co
14:33,40) and in the spirit of love (1 Co 15:14). The Holy Spirit never leads Christians to group
themselves together in Jesus’ name for a competitive purpose so as to duplicate, hinder, or disturb that scope of the ministry of the keys which is already effectively provided for by a previously established grouping of Christians. Every added grouping of Christians in Jesus’ name, as effected by the Holy Spirit, will be for the purpose of assisting the primary groupings in exercising certain phases of the ministry of the keys more fully and more efficiently in keeping with the great commission of the Lord (e.g. in mission work, in Christian education, in the training of public servants of the Word, in Christian charity, in the supervision of doctrine and practice) or for the purpose of providing needed strengthening through Word and Sacrament which, because of special circumstances, is not adequately offered or cannot well be offered through already existing groupings (e.g. worship services at conferences and synodical conventions, ministry to students, to the handicapped, to the institutionalized, etc.). The more fully also the secondary groupings of Christians remain conscious of their essential character as Church, the more keenly will they feel their responsibility of functioning in accordance with love and good order and thus carefully restrict themselves to those phases of the ministry of the keys which would otherwise fail to receive the attention that they deserve.
(Doctrinal Statements, 45-47 - emphasis theirs)

The question this study invites us to consider is whether the secondary grouping of Christians that we know as the WELS is functioning today in a way that merely assists the primary groupings -- our congregations – or whether, through the gradual redefinition of its role and function, our synod has begun to duplicate, to hinder or, dare we say, even to disturb those primary groupings. Today we are witnessing the increasing commitment of synodical resources and attention to matters such as spiritual growth, family ministry, personal witnessing, individual stewardship and other

28

areas of Christian living that have formerly fallen into the realm of the local congregation; simultaneously we are observing dramatic decreases in the resources being devoted to missions and ministerial education, those efforts that historically and traditionally have been the realm of synodical work. At such a time, it is not out of order to ask whether our synod is conducting itself in a way that is consistent with its own doctrinal statements.

VII. Conclusion
Our joy is that we may ask that question in a spirit of brotherhood and confessional unity. The
introduction to the same booklet of doctrinal statements cited above says this:
These doctrinal statements testify that our synod saw the need to set forth the truth in the
face of controversy at various times in its history. It is not at all surprising that Christians must
testify in this way during their earthly pilgrimage. What is perhaps surprising is that our synod
has formulated relatively few declarations and that these are relatively brief. We hold this to be a testimony to God’s grace in keeping us largely united in the confession of his truths and largely
free from doctrinal controversies and struggles, especially on the primary doctrines of the Bible.
We invite our readers to share our joy in this. (Doctrinal Statements, 3) At this time in our “earthly pilgrimage,” we may find it beneficial to re-examine the role and function of our beloved synod, to reassess the way we have stated its mission and the manner in which we plan its work. We may do so without accusation and without contention, because we understand that we
remain united in God’s truth and in the fellowship of his grace. Because we treasure that fellowship of grace, because we desire that our efforts as individual Christians, as congregations, and as a synod, may only serve to preserve and extend that fellowship during our time of grace, we may address questions of common concern with openness and candor. My understanding is that we have gathered here today for precisely that purpose. Commenting on the origins of our synod’s MOV, President Gurgel said this: “It was an honest attempt to focus our attention on what we might all agree could be an outline of what, under God, we would seek to accomplish together as the WELS. The emphasis, always, was on the last words of the MOV, ‘all to the glory of God.’” In our further discussions of the MOV and of the work of our Wisconsin Synod, let us acknowledge and give thanks for that spirit, and do all that we can to mirror it in our own
efforts. May God bless those efforts with his guidance and a rich measure of his Holy Spirit, creating from our meager thoughts, words and acts a channel that will bring his blessings to our synod, so that all we do may clearly declare:

SOLI DEO GLORIA

29

WORKS CITED
Alexander, Paul. Review of The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren. http://www.9marks.org/partner/
Article_Display_Page/

Bartz, Thomas L. The Great Commission. Essay delivered to the Northern Conference, Michigan District, WELS.

Business Plans Develop from Strategic Planning. www.adamssixsigma.com/strategy_vision_values.htm

Cardani, Leann. Corporate Mission Statements: A Strategic Management Issue. www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/
stuwebs/btopics/works/mission.htm
C
onstitution and Bylaws of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Milwaukee: WELS Publication.
Printed off www.wels.net, 2005.

Doctrinal Statements of the WELS. WELS: Commission on Inter-Church Relations, 1997.

Elias, John W. “The Purpose Drive Church Model: Can It Work for Your Church?” Church Growth Magazine,
Vol 15 (January-March, 2000), p2-4.

Frey, Conrad. Getting to Know Strategic Planning and Sharpening the Environmental Focus. Materials for
presentation at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, during the WELS Seminar. September, 1988.

Kelm, Paul. Twenty-Twenty. Presentation to the Synodical Council Retreat, 2002.

Kelm, Paul E. “Jesus’ Mission for His Church.” Lutheran Leadership Series: Five Six-Lesson Bible Studies for
Lutheran Parish Leaders. Milwaukee: WELS Parish Services, 2004.

Kuske, David. Exegetical Brief: The Meaning of matheteuzete in Matthew 28:19. Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary
web site essay file.

Lerner, Alexander L. A Strategic Planning Primer. www.des.calstate.edu/strategic.html

Mueller, Wayne. Email explaining the function of the Ministry Operations Team (MOT). 2005.

Nelson, Jason M. Shades of the Coming Night. A presentation. 2001.

Schuetze, Armin W. and Irwin J. Habeck. The Shepherd Under Christ. Milwaukee: NPH, 1974.

Valleskey, David J. Equipping the Believers as Disciples. Convention essay, 1987 WELS Convention.
Proceedings of the 49th Biennial Convention of the WELS, 1989, p.216f.

Walther, C.F.W. The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1928.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

WELS 2020 Vision: Personal Vision of WELS Leaders. A survey with commentary. November, 2004.
Also:
Variously from the Books of Reports and Memorials, the Convention Proceedings, and the Reports to the Districts,
1981-2004, as published by the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod.
Variously from comments offered in response to the author’s request for information about the MOV from the follow (sic)
WELS leaders: President Karl Gurgel; Vice President Wayne Mueller, Area of Ministry Administrators
Bruce Becker, Daniel Koelpin, and Peter Kruschel.
30


APPENDIX “A”
MOV Statements & Revisions
MISSION - OBJECTIVES - VISION 2000+ (Presented in 1989)
MISSION
As men, women and children united in faith and worship by the word of God, the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod exists to make disciples
throughout the world for time and for eternity, using the gospel to win the lost for Christ and 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;
2. To seize every opportunity the Lord provides to evangelize lost souls and establish ministering churches
throughout the world;
3. To help each other grow and mature in the faith through public worship and 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, his world;
5. To recruit and train candidates qualified for full-time ministry and provide for their continuing education 80 that the
word of God is proclaimed faithfully and effectively in accord with the Lutheran Confessions.


VISION 2000+: *Vision Defined:
1. An outline of what, under God, we hope our synod will be and do;
2. An instrument to focus, prioritize, and coordinate planning;
3. The application of faith in the Lord's promises and stewardship of his resources to his church's future.
Preamble: It is essential that every member understand and endorse Christ's mission for the church.
Under Objective One:
1. Through an ongoing scriptural study of doctrine in every congregation and conference.
2. Through publication and distribution of thorough theological studies on contemporary issues challenging Christianity;
3. Through increased use of mass media to proclaim the truth of God's word;
4. Through fostering confessional unity of faith among Christians throughout the world;
Under Objective Two:
1. To reach new people by planting new churches with the goal of 1500 congregations ;
2. To reach people of other cultures in our country by establishing 10 new cross-cultural missions in urban centers; .
3. To expand our world outreach by increasing our expatriate mission corps to 70;
4. To reach our lost neighbors through a structured program in every congregation.
Under Objective Three:
1 .A recognition of every member's need to worship regularly as reflected in an increasing synodical church attendance
from 40% to 60%;
2. An emphasis on every communicant's need for organized bible study as reflected by an increase in average synodical
bible class attendance from 11% to 30%;
3. Concerted efforts to enroll- 100% of the children of our church in formal programs of Christian education;
4. Equip all of our members for personal and family devotional life.
Under Objective Four:
1. To reflect the scriptural injunction to give as God has prospered us by doubling our personal offerings for the Lord's
work to a synodical average of 5% of income, including a doubling of gifts for our mutual mission and ministry as a synod;
2. To assist Christian in utilizing their spiritual gifts by providing training for ministry in all of our congregations with 60$
of WELS members involved in opportunities for ministry within the church;
3. To assist families in our congregations and to reach out to our communities by providing Christian marriage and parenting
programs, Christian schools and day care, youth ministry, family support groups, and Christian counseling, with a plan for
family ministry implemented in all WELS congregations;
4. To respond to special needs and a changing society with Christ-centered programs of ministry for people whose physica1,
emotional, or social situation may require additional forms of ministry.
Under Objective Five:
1. To intensify recruitment from elementary, high school, and non-traditional sources with recruitment and scholarship
emphasis in every congregation in order to produce 70 pastor candidates and 140 teacher candidates each year;
2. To study recruiting, training, certification, and calling process for staff workers other than pastors and teachers;
3. To develop a comprehensive program for professional growth in ministry that has :all called workers participating in
individualized continuing education with the support of their congregations;
4. To support the called workers Christ gives to the Church with a structure for mutual encouragement, counseling, adequate
financial provis1ons, and staff-to-membership ratios appropriate to min1stry expectations.
31

APPENDIX “A”
Mission – Objectives – Vision 2003+ ( Presented in 1993)
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 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;
2. To seize every opportunity the Lord provides to evangelize lost souls and establish ministering churches throughout the world;
3. To help each other grow and mature in the faith through public worship and 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;
S. To recruit and train candidates qualified for full-time ministry and provide for their continuing education so that the Word of God is proclaimed faithfully and effectively in accord with the Lutheran Confessions.

Vision 2003+: Vision Defined:
1. The application of faith in the Lord's promises and stewardship of his resources to his church's future;
2. An outline of what, under God, we hope our synod will be and do to focus, prioritize, and coordinate its planning.

Under Objective One:
A. Through an ongoing scriptural study of doctrine in every congregation and conference;
B. Through publication and distribution of thorough theological studies on contemporary issues challenging Christianity;
C. Through increased use of up-to-date methods of communications to proclaim the truth of God's Word;
D. Through fostering confessional unity of faith among ourselves and among Christians throughout the world.
Under Objective Two:
A. To reach new people by planting new churches with the goal of 300 new groupings, (e.g., congregations, preaching stations, daughter congregations);
B. To reach people of other cultures in our country by establishing 10 new cross-cultural missions in urban centers;
C. To expand our world outreach by increasing our overseas mission corps to 70 seminary trained missionaries and 30 mission workers;
D. To reach our lost neighbors through a structured program in every congregation.
Under Objective Three:
A. A recognition of every member's need to worship regularly as reflected in an increasing synodical church attendance from 44% to 60%
of baptized members;
B. An emphasis on every communicant's need for organized Bible study as reflected by an increase in average synodical Bible class attendance from 11% to 30% of confirmed members;
C. Concerted efforts to enroll 100% of the children of our church in formal programs of Christian education;
D. Equip all of our members for personal and family devotional life.
Under Objective Four:
A. To reflect the scriptural injunction to give as God has prospered us by doubling our personal offerings for the Lord's work to an average of 5% of income, including a doubling of gifts for our shared mission and ministry as a synod;
B. To assist each other to love one another and to utilize our spiritual gifts by providing training, opportunities, and structure for ministry in all of our congregations;
C. To assist families in our congregations and to reach out to our communities by providing Christian marriage and parenting programs, Christian schools and child care, youth ministry , family support groups, and Christian counseling with a plan for family ministry implemented in every parish;
D. To respond to special needs and a changing society with Christ-centered programs of ministry for people whose physical, emotional, or social situation may require them.
Under Objective Five:
A. To continue recruitment from elementary , high school, and non-traditional sources with recruitment and scholarship emphasis in every congregation in order to produce 52 pastor candidates and 103 teacher candidates each year;
B. To implement and enhance recruiting, training, certifying, and calling of staff workers other than pastors and teachers;
C. To encourage use of a comprehensive program for professional growth in ministry that has all called workers participating in individualized continuing education with the support of their congregations;
D. To support the called workers Christ gives to the church with a structure for mutual encouragement, counseling, adequate financial provisions, and staff-to-membership ratios appropriate to ministry expectations.

APPENDIX “A”

32
WELS MISSION - OBJECTIVES - VISION (Presented in 1999)

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, reflecting Christ's love in lives of Christian service to the Lord,
his Church, and his world;
5. To mobilize our people, as members 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.
KEY EMPHASES
-- Emphasis on getting more people into God's Word more often through worship and Bible study.
-- Emphasis on recruiting, training, and improving the financial support of those called to proclaim God's Word publicly.
-- Emphasis on reaching the lost in our nation with God's Word.
-- Emphasis on reaching the lost in other nations with God's Word.
VISION 2003: THE WORD IS EVERYTHING!
-- Through an ongoing Scriptural study of doctrine in every congregation and conference;
-- Through further cultivating a clear biblical understanding of the gospel ministry that may take on many forms;
-- Through publication and distribution of thorough theological studies on contemporary issues challenging Christianity;
-- Through increased use of up-to-date technology and methods of communication to proclaim the truth of God's Word;
-- Through fostering confessional unity of faith among ourselves and among Christians throughout the world.
GO WITH IT!
-- To reach new people by planting new churches with the goal of 20 new groupings (e.g. congregations, preaching stations, daughter
congregations) annually;
-- To reach people of other cultures in our home mission fields by establishing annually three new cross-cultural missions in urban centers,
as well as other geographic settings;
-- To expand our world outreach by increasing our overseas mission corps to 75 seminary trained missionaries, 10 teachers, and 40 mission
workers;
-- To get every member to evangelize the lost.
STUDY IT!
-- Equip all of our members for personal and family devotional life;
-- Focus parents' efforts on spiritual nurturing of preschoolers;
-- Concentrate efforts to enroll 100 percent of our children in formal programs of Christian education and grow from six percent to
15 percent the number of teens in Bible study;
-- Emphasize every communicant's need for organized Bible study as reflected by an increase in average synodical Bible class attendance
from 14 percent to 25 percent of confirmed members;
-- Recognize every member's need to worship regularly as reflected in an increasing synodical church attendance from 45 percent to
52 percent of baptized members.
APPLY IT!
-- To reflect the Scriptural injunction to give as God has prospered us by doubling our personal offerings for the Lord's work to an average
of five percent of income, including a doubling of gifts for our shared mission and ministry as a synod;
-- To assist each other to love one another and to utilize our spiritual gifts by providing encouragement, training, opportunities, and structure
for ministry in all of our congregations;
-- To assist families in our congregations and to reach out to our communities by providing Christian marriage and parenting programs,
Christian schools and day care, youth ministry, family support groups, and Christian counseling with a plan for family ministry
implemented in every congregation;
-- To respond to special needs and a changing society with Christ-centered ministry for people whose physical, emotional, or social
situation may require assistance;
-- To use 50 percent of God's people in the ministry with God's Word;
-- To optimize the enthusiasm of emerging adults (18-24) for evangelism by involving 25 percent of our young adults in personal
evangelism;
-- To capitalize on maturing generations' (55-80) spiritual wisdom through ministry by involving 30 percent of them in the ministry of the
Word.
APPENDIX “A”
33
TEACH IT!
-- To continue recruitment from elementary, high school, and non-traditional sources with recruitment and scholarship emphasis in every
congregation in order to produce 55 pastor candidates and 99 teacher candidates each year;
-- To implement and enhance recruiting, training, certifying, and calling of staff workers other than pastors and teachers;
-- To encourage use of a comprehensive program for professional growth in ministry that has all called workers participating in
individualized continuing education with the support of their congregations;
-- To support the called workers Christ gives to the church with a structure for mutual encouragement, counseling, adequate financial
provisions, and staff-to-membership ratios appropriate to ministry expectations;
-- To engage up to five percent of our faculties annually in alternate settings of ministry-related field experience;
-- To involve the majority of our ministerial education students in appropriate ministry-related field experiences while in school.
[ Updated by WELS Synodical Council 8/98 ]
34

APPENDIX “A”

WELS MISSION - OBJECTIVES - VISION STATEMENT (Presented in 2003)

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 members 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 personal witnessing
Our WELS Vision: The gospel in Word and sacrament is everything!
Go With It!
-- Reach new people by planting new churches.
-- Reach people of other cultures in North America by establishing new cross-cultural missions.
-- Expand our world outreach by increasing our overseas mission corps.
-- Involve every member in evangelizing the lost both inside and outside the church.
Study It!
-- Equip all of our members for personal and family devotional life.
-- Focus parents' efforts on spiritual nurturing of preschoolers.
-- Concentrate efforts to enroll all of our children in formal programs of Christian education.
-- Emphasize every communicant's need for organized Bible study.
-- Emphasize every member's need for regular public worship.
-- Carry on a scriptural study of doctrine in every congregation and conference.
-- Cultivate a clear biblical understanding of worship principles.
-- Cultivate a clear biblical understanding of the gospel ministry that may take on many forms.
-- Publish and distribute thorough theological studies on contemporary issues challenging Christianity.
-- Make effective use of up-to-date technology and methods of communication to proclaim the truth of God's Word.
-- Foster confessional unity of faith among ourselves and among Christians throughout the world.
Apply It!
-- Reflect the scriptural injunction to give as God has prospered us
-- Assist each other to love one another and to use our spiritual gifts.
-- Assist families in our congregations and reach out with such assistance to those in our communities.
-- Respond to special needs and a changing society with Christ-centered ministry for people whose physical, emotional, or social
situation may require assistance.
-- Involve people in the ministry with God's Word.
-- Optimize the enthusiasm of emerging adults (18 and up) for ministry.
-- Make the most of the wisdom of maturing generations (55 and up) in the ministry of the Word.
Teach It!
-- Continue recruitment for the public ministry with recruitment and scholarship emphasis in every congregation.
-- Implement and enhance recruiting, training, certifying, and calling of staff workers other than pastors and teachers.
-- Encourage use of a comprehensive program for professional growth in ministry for all called workers.
-- Develop and implement ways and means to train workers for cross-cu1tural ministry.
-- Develop and implement comprehensive support programs for the called workers Christ gives to the church.
-- Provide ministry-related field experiences for the faculties of our ministerial education schools.
-- Involve the majority of our ministerial education students in appropriate ministry-related field experiences while in school

35
APPENDIX “B”

Memorial for Mission Statement Revision

Clarifying the mission of the WELS

WHEREAS 1) our Lord Jesus has blessed his Church with the ministry of reconciliation, which is the task of proclaiming his Gospel to all the world (Cf. Mk 16:15 “...preach the Gospel;” Lk 24:47-48 “repentance and remission of sins should be preached... You are witnesses...;” Ac 1:8 “you shall be my witnesses.” 2 Co 5:18-20 “We are... Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us”); and

WHEREAS 2) in conferring this blessing, the Savior involves his people in the Gospel’s process (i.e. preaching, teaching, bearing witness) but he never makes his people responsible for the Gospel’s product (i.e. converted hearts, saved souls); that is work our God reserves for himself alone (Cf. Is 55:11 “My word... will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please...;” 1 Co 3:6 “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.”); and

WHEREAS 3) in only one place in Scripture does the Savior appear to give responsibility to his people for the results of the Gospel’s work, telling his followers “Go and make disciples of all nations...” (Mt 28:19); and

WHEREAS 4) the word in the original Greek that is translated as “make disciples” is “matheteuzete,” a verb form used nowhere else in the New Testament; and

WHEREAS 5) the precise meaning of that word, “matheteuzete,” is open to debate and varied interpretation, even among faithful scholars in our own circles; and

WHEREAS 6) according to the principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it would be most proper for this voicing of the Savior’s Great Commission to be understood and translated in a manner consistent with other voicings of that commission as noted above (and as was done by Dr. Luther and by the King James Version, where “matheteuzete” is translated as “teach”); and

WHEREAS 7) instead, in the New International Version and several other modern translations (e.g. RSV, TEV, GWN), the word “matheteuzete” is translated as “make disciples” – a translation that neither literally reflects the structure of the Greek nor is consistent with the rest of Scripture; and

WHEREAS 8) while it may be possible for the translation “make disciples” to be rightly understood, it may also be argued that the translation invites misinterpretation, and may even open a door to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of conversion since can it appear to make man at least partly responsible for the conversion process; and

WHEREAS 9) the translation “make disciples” is also open to misunderstanding since there is no general agreement in our circles as to what constitutes a “disciple” (i.e. does ‘disciple’ mean ‘believer’ or ‘learner’ or ‘follower’ or some narrower, higher or more specialized subset of any of those meanings?); and

WHEREAS 10) of all of Scripture’s voicings of Christ’s Great Commission, the WELS has chosen to incorporate into the synod’s mission statement the voicing that is most open to misunderstanding and misapplication, since it is based on a questionable translation and involves language that lacks a consensus of understanding; and

WHEREAS 11) in stating the mission of the WELS, our synod will certainly wish to follow the wise practice of speaking “not merely so we may be understood, but so that we may not be misunderstood,” and

WHEREAS 12) stating the mission of the WELS in a manner that may so easily be misunderstood invites the problem of the synod pursuing its mission along paths of such misunderstanding; and 36 APPENDIX “B”

WHEREAS 13) it could be argued that the apparent shift in synodical priorities, away from the support of missions and ministerial education and toward the greater involvement of the synod in the day-to-day work of serving and nurturing believers in our congregations, may be leading the synod along just such a path of misunderstanding as synodical resources are less and less devoted to “the preaching of the Gospel” and more and more devoted to what may be seen as “the making of disciples;” and

WHEREAS 14) stating the mission of the WELS in a manner that centers on the preaching of the Gospel would be a) consistent with Scripture; b) precisely clear and freed of misunderstanding and misapplication; and c) an entirely proper and abundantly challenging expression of the work our Savior has given us to do; therefore, be it

RESOLVED a) that the synod President request the faculty of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary to conduct and publish a thorough exegetical, doctrinal and confessional study of Matthew 28:18-20, with attention given to determining whether the translation “make disciples” does justice to the inspired text and gives accurate expression to Scripture’s truth; and be it further

RESOLVED b) that the synod in convention affirm that it recognizes that the task given by the Lord Jesus to his Church on earth (as expressed in Mk 16:15, Lk 24:47-48, Ac 1:8, 2 Co 5:20 and elsewhere) is to preach, proclaim and be witnesses to the saving Gospel and not to create converted souls or produce sanctified behavior, which is the task of the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel; and be it further

RESOLVED c) that the synod in convention embrace this God-given task and work diligently to advance all such activities as serve the preaching and proclaiming of the Gospel in all the world as well as the preparing of those who will lead the way in such proclamation; and be it finally

RESOLVED d) that the synod President appoint a committee to revise the mission statement of the WELS so as to avoid any misunderstanding present in the words “make disciples,” and to focus that expression of the synod’s mission more clearly and directly on the task of preaching the Gospel.