Rev. John Seifert, president of the Michigan District, says the displaced workers were encouraged to hear that their experiences in ministry have value in and are transferable to the secular market. Still, they face a difficult struggle finding meaningful employment in the Saginaw area where the unemployment rate hovers between 22 and 25 percent.
Seifert expresses thanks for the support from Committee on Relief for the effort. "The counseling would not have been possible with it," he says.
The Glory Has Departed
Monday, October 5, 2009
Where Marcus Manthey? Hire Him as Editor!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Did he misspeak? Or is there a "not" missing in Siefert's statement?
Maybe he should be allowed to find out first hand if such feel good talk has any merit. Such a low, 'functional' view of the ministry. 'It's just a job, your skills are transferable to another job. But we'll pay for a little counseling. We know you need it after how we've treated you.'
For years the Wisconsin Synod fought off accusations they were Hoeflingites. There's a series running on Hoefling right now in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly.
But a few quotes like the one from Michigan belie a strange (to Lutheranism) view of the ministry. It's offensive.
I believe Rev. Seifert meant "without" it. Although I'm a MLC grad, so I might be wrong.
I thought the Committee on Relief was to assist people suffering from natural disasters, not ecclesiastical disasters. Normally the synodical office funds things germaine to called workers' needs. Were the donors informed their donations would being used for something else?
Not to change the topic,but I have a UOJ question. "A Summary Of Christian Doctrine"(Edward W.A. Koehler 1939 Concordia Publishing House) contains the words universal and objective when explaining justification. This was in my husband's book collection. How much of an influence was this in the WELS and LCMS?
from WELS church lady
Anonymous is right! The Committee on Relief is helping out people that the WELS laid off when the program was always touted as helping out natural disaster victims. Hmm. It's another case of misusing funds so synodical workers don't have to take a pay cut, or get laid off.
I've seen that before. After every fund in a church for other purposes is drained dry, except those protected with iron-clad lawyerly clauses for specific purposes, only then does the pastor take a pay cut, and the budget is cut. Then there's talk about how the church has to pay the funds back. Seems to me the budget and pastor's salary should have been cut before funds were drained dry, not after.
This is regarding the last comment from Anonymous (10-6-09 8:44 PM). Here's a novel concept. Why don't the members of a congregation give proportionally so that you don't have to drain the funds and talk about the pastor (who is probably horribly underpaid as it is) taking a pay cut!
I.J. Reilly,
Why does everyone in the WELS assume every congregation underpays their pastor? In fact, this congregation of which I was speaking paid according to the synodical guidelines for salary (as many do), which in fact is quite generous when the parsonage and healthcare is provided and other perks, and the cost of living in the area is not that high.
The knee jerk reaction of not cutting the pastor's salary no matter what, and attempting other quick fixes is what gets many congregations into serious financial trouble. The congregation either needs to raise giving or cut where it actually has the authority and right to cut. It should not dip into and borrow from funds set aside for other purposes. To do that instead of cutting the pastor's salary is the worse of two evils, for then the congregation is a worse financial hole, and also no one trusts that money will go where its supposed to. When that happens, the pastor must inevitably take a really big pay cut.
Post a Comment