Candidates for ministry: blessings from a gracious God
From the office of President Mark Schroeder
At Martin Luther College and at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, God is again demonstrating his love for his church by providing dozens of young people who are led by him to say, "Here am I; send me!"
Last week at Martin Luther College, 80 candidates for the teaching ministry were assigned to their field of service. As they received their calls, our entire synod was reminded of God's promises for the future. These newly minted teachers will enter elementary schools, early childhood programs, prep schools, and Lutheran high schools. They are well prepared to teach and to guide and to encourage. Most important, they are equipped to play a vital role in teaching future generations of God's people to know the love of Christ.
This week at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, vicars and graduates will be assigned. The vicars will spend the next year learning the practical aspects of the pastoral ministry before returning for their final year of seminary studies. Graduates will be assigned to their first year of service in the pastoral ministry. They, too, represent God's precious gifts to his church—young men who will continue to proclaim God's truth and to share the comfort of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When so many other church bodies are experiencing shortages of workers, we count it as a special blessing that we have been blessed with such a large number of young people willing to dedicate their lives to full-time service in the church.
At Martin Luther College, there were 21 candidates available for service anywhere who were not assigned on call day. We do not yet know if any seminary graduates will not be assigned later this week.
The assignment process for both pastors and teachers, however, does not end. Throughout the coming months, the Conference of Presidents will assign candidates as soon as they receive requests from congregations. Please keep all of our unassigned candidates and their families in your prayers. We will want to ask God to give them a strong faith rooted in his Word, joy that flows from the gospel, and a patient trust that comes from knowing that their times are in the hands of a gracious God.
Proposed budget outlines impact of reductions
Last week the Synodical Council released additional details about the proposed synodical budget that will be considered by the synod convention this summer. With expected financial resources approximately $8 million less than needed, all areas of ministry are preparing to make significant cuts in their staffing and programs. Because of the extent and urgency of the budget reductions, some ministry positions are being eliminated immediately—you may be hearing about them from various sources. Waiting longer to begin those reductions would mean additional cuts later on.
The proposed budget includes two options. Option A calls for significant reductions in all areas of ministry but would enable the synod to maintain its two ministerial education prep schools. Option B would shift funds from Ministerial Education and provide $500,000 each to Home and World Missions; this shift would result in fewer reductions in mission programs at home and in various mission fields around the world. According to the Board for Ministerial Education, Option B would make it possible to operate only one synodical prep school after the coming year.
The Synodical Council chose to present two options because it recognized that there are clear differences of opinion on how best to allocate the synod's limited resources. Rather than choosing one of those options and recommending it, the Synodical Council determined that it could best serve the synod if it presented two clear choices and enabled the delegates at the convention to make an informed, prayerful decision.
Here is a brief summary of some of the reductions required by the proposed budget:
World Missions
Option A
Overall 23.5 manpower positions are unfunded; of the 23 positions, 15 existing missionaries will be recalled from the field, 4 are vacant positions that will not be filled, and 4 were planned positions.
All existing fields affected but still served at a reduced level; unable to enter 1 new field (Mozambique) as planned.
Option B
Four missionary positions eliminated under Option A are able to be retained under Option B.
Home Missions
Option A
21 called positions (18 pastors and 3 staff ministers) likely cannot be maintained; 2 of these are currently vacant.
13 mission fields likely to be lost.
Option B
Retains 7 of the 18 pastoral ministries listed above.
Six of the 13 fields potentially lost under Option A would be retained.
Ministerial Education administration
Options A and B
Allows for only a minimum level of program maintenance at the schools.
Reduces financial assistance provided by the budget.
Elimination of 1 clerical support staff.
Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary
Options A and B
Maintains existing faculty strength.
Several staff positions removed from the budget and funded from non-budgetary sources.
All areas of operation reduced to the lowest possible level of funding.
Martin Luther College
Options A and B
Reduction of 25 faculty and staff positions (of these 9.5 positions are vacant).
Increased teaching loads required of faculty.
Luther Preparatory School
Options A and B
Five faculty positions and 6 support staff positions eliminated.
Michigan Lutheran Seminary
Option A
Eight faculty and 5 support staff positions eliminated.
Option B
In the first year of the biennium, Michigan Lutheran Seminary is funded by a combination of reduced synod subsidy and Ministerial Education special funds.
In the second year of the biennium, the school is not viable, and all remaining faculty and staff positions are eliminated.
Parish Services
Options A and B
Position of the Parish Services administrator eliminated; 2 unit administrators and 4 support staff positions to be eliminated.
Most ministry functions supported by special funds and fees.
Retains Commissions for Parish Schools and Special Ministries as distinct entities with their own administrators; reconfigures remaining units of Parish Services into a new combined group (possibly called the Congregational Ministries Resource team) to carry out the functions of Adult Discipleship, Youth Discipleship, Worship, Evangelism, and Parish Assistance.
Ministry Support
Options A and B
Reduces programs and budget overseen by the Conference of Presidents and the Synodical Council.
Eliminates a total of 17 positions, reducing called and hired staffing from 72 to 57 within the areas of Facilities, Technology, Leadership, Christian Giving, Communication Services, and Financial Services.
The Book of Reports and Memorials will be posted online by the end of next week with detailed information regarding the proposed budget and the impact on the various areas of ministry. Until then, a budget overview sent to called workers and delegates last week is available for download.
As you begin to grasp the reality of our situation, I know that you join me in the prayer that God will guide our discussion and decisions, and in the confidence that his gracious promises remain with us in these challenging times.
Serving in Christ,
Mark Schroeder
6 comments:
There is NO WAY that option B will be passed. That would mean in all likeliehood that MLS would be closed.
As Pres Bush the 1st would say:
"Not gonna do it"
or
"Read my lips. Option B will NOT pass".
There is still hope for WELS with SP Mark Schroeder. Mark inspires and empowers the representatives to think instead of rubber-stamping an unviable plan from ever-so-clever leaders. He places trust in the reasoning of representatives for a change.
I like it. Good riddens to the old "my way or the highway approach" with the attendant dementia of the central planners. This may help re-vitalize the laity.
While Mark’s management style departs somewhat from the hierarchical, command and control, top-down, rubber-stamp-it style of past SPs, a lot needs to be done to recover from past apostasy, blunders and excesses. Do NOT expect a lot of change since pastors and laity were conditioned over generations not to stray from their earthly shepherds / pastors and the synod. They were taught that their pastors are highly educated and know the Word of God forwards and backwards. The education system focused on memorization, repetition and conformity – not thinking and reasoning because they were dissed by teachers. In other words, the system strongly encouraged students and members to become creatures of habit holding their teachers and pastors in the highest trust and respect.
Allowing the laity to chastise the clergy in WELS goes against everything taught and practiced in WELS. The leaders will fight it just like the pope and RCC fought the reformation. Then the laity will scatter and go back to being dumb sheep no matter what the Word of God says. They were convinced long ago and accept that they can do no good – either in the eyes of God or their religious leaders.
Rank hath its privileges even in WELS. Responsibility and accountability are driven to the lowest level while the leaders shirk it as it suits them.
Two options give a picture of indecision by WELS leaders. Would it not be wiser to make one proposal with other informed options available to the convention floor committee and to the plenary convention? WELS needs informed, decisive leadership, not options, which may tend to multiply as well as divide.
We have seen time and again the results of a few arrogant central planners making the decisions for all of WELS. The one proposal approach failed. Posturing and santimoney overrode well-informed and well-thought-out decisions for decades. I have had enough of master minds like Vallesky and Gurgel saying here is the proposal for your approval. Their decisive leadership created one mess after another.
I realize that most "one plan" ideas in the past were not what most people wanted and pushed down the gullets of the delegates. However, in suggesting that the leadership of the synod present one plan instead of two, my intention was to give one plan, but not shove it down the throats of the delegates. Instead, my thought was that they would be there is any optional information the floor committee and plenary committee wants and would have solid data to back it up.
This issue I have with two plans is that the leadership seems to have indicated their favored position by calling it Option A. It would also seem that, in offering two positions, they can favor one (A) by making the other unacceptable to many (B), with the closing of MLS.
As I see it, the two options making the closing of MLS such a hot potato that the synod leadership did not want to deal with it, so they are leaving it up to the floor committee to make the decision, thus relieving the synod's leadership of negative PR.
Instead of good leadership, it see it is the cleverest political move they synodical council could have devised. They are off the hook completely. When all it said and done, they can say, "We had nothing to do with it. It was your decision, and we are simply carrying out the decision of the convention." To me, the two option plan either shows indecision by the synodical leaders or fear of again being the bad guys.
Post a Comment