Three people have sent me the Mark Schroeder plan, copied below, so I surrender. Yes, I will post all 11 pages. Soon the servers for this blog will occupy most of Southern California.
Reclaim the Mission is terribly wordy and bureaucratic, but it does point out serious flaws in Gurgel's command of the WELS-tanic. The fatal flaw in this long document is Mark's refusal to face the besetting sin of false doctrine in WELS - truth on the scaffold, error on the throne. Nevertheless, this document does spell out many of the problems in WELS mis-management, most of which developed once WELS fell in love with Management by Objective. One reader thinks the main problem is with their budgeting magic, called PPBS.
Mark Schroeder is one of the good Schroeders, three brothers serving in WELS. The previously misspelled Marc Schroder is the son of Morton Schroeder. Marc's only call has been at Prince of Peace in Reynoldsburg (Columbus), Ohio. He and his congregation were kicked out of WELS by DP John Seifert, even though they were doing and saying no more than the bosses in Milwaukee.
Reclaim the Mission
A proposal to foster renewed unity in purpose and direction in WELS
Mark Schroeder
May 16, 2007
FINAL VERSION
“I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Ph 1:3-7)
Introduction
Many people believe that our synod today is at an important crossroads. The Conference of Presidents has even described the situation as a crisis. There is a growing conviction that something is clearly wrong; that the God-given partnership we have enjoyed as a synod is at risk; and that real changes must be made in order to restore unity and focus as we carry out our common mission of proclaiming the gospel to the world.
In discussing the problems facing the synod, we will not want to minimize God’s rich blessings on our synod or to give the impression that there are few positive things happening in our synodical efforts. Nor will we want to focus blame on individuals or groups for past decisions. Christian charity demands that the actions of brothers be viewed in the best possible light. Nothing in this document should be seen as questioning the motives or the intent of anyone.
In spite of the best of intentions, however, decisions have been made, directions taken, and programs and policies adopted, which have not had the desired results. We find our synod in a difficult position on multiple fronts. As we try to identify the nature and cause of the problems facing us, and as we search for remedies, we must not hesitate to evaluate past decisions which have brought us to the current situation. Making such an evaluation is not impugning motives or questioning faith. But unless we identify where we have taken a divergent path, we can’t expect to return to a path which has us walking together in proclaiming the gospel to the world through joint mission work and through training qualified workers.
Secondly, as we struggle to look to God for help in solving theses problems, we need to look first at our own hearts, our own stewardship, and our own attitudes. When that examination takes place, there is no one among us who can say anything other than, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” It is only in repentance, both individually and collectively, that a true solution can begin.
Evidence of a synod in crisis
What is the evidence that the synod is facing a genuine crisis – a crisis not primarily of finances but of purpose, focus, and mission? What are some of the specific problems confronting the synod?
Some of the evidence of the problems facing the synod is factual and quantifiable:
1. The small number of traditional home mission openings funded by the synod in recent years
2. The significant reduction of world mission manpower because of the lack of funding
3. The steep decline in enrollment at our ministerial education schools, due primarily to spiraling tuition and continuing uncertainty about the status of the schools
4. The insufficient level of funding of ministerial education schools, resulting in reduced school budgets, program cuts, increased tuition, rising tuition rates, the requirement to undertake development work (mission advancement), and, more recently, the recommendation of the Synodical Council to close Michigan Lutheran Seminary
5. The significant increase in that portion of the synod’s budget which funds programs not identified by the 2005 convention as core ministry priorities (home missions, world missions, ministerial education). In the latest budget presented by the president and recommended by the SC, fully 25% of the budget is earmarked for non-priority areas. While it is true that gospel ministry does take place in the non-mission areas of the synod, the convention was clear in its intent to emphasize the three areas listed above and itemized in convention resolutions.
6. The lack of significant increases in congregational financial support for synodical programs, even though overall giving by WELS members has reached record levels
7. The decision of the Synodical Council, reacting to continuing budgetary shortfalls, to recommend that the synod depart from the priorities established at the last convention, when only two years ago the convention overwhelmingly resolved to maintain the current four-school ministerial education system.
Other evidence may less tangible and measurable, but reflects a growing sense of concern:
1. Over the past decade the synod’s mission and purpose has been shifted and broadened, resulting in a blurring of organizational focus, and, subsequently, a loss of constituent support. This has taken place in a number of different ways as the synod has gradually departed from its original core mission. Historically, the synod has served as an instrument or mechanism to “do together what we cannot do separately.” Over the past decade, however, the synod has taken on the characteristics of a denomination—a large congregation of 400,000 members. It has changed into an entity no longer merely an extension of the congregations but has become a charitable organization existing apart and distinct from those congregations. Instead serving simply as a means for God’s people to pool their resources to accomplish joint gospel outreach, it has assumed a leadership role, seen by some as the means to lead congregations and members rather than an instrument to serve them. In other words, some have come to view the synod either as primarily a service organization which provides programs and materials for congregations and individuals, or, alternately, as a leadership entity, serving as the catalyst for spiritual growth and Christian service.
This shift in the understanding of what the synod is and the broadening of its purpose into a service organization with denominational characteristics has led many to conclude that financial support given to synod is no longer primarily used for missions and training workers. It may do many good things, but many of those things are not what are normally thought of as included in the priorities adopted by the last convention. With this gradual change in purpose and focus, support for the synod—both financial and vocal—has begun to dwindle. The close connection between pastors and their congregations and synodical programs has eroded. Twenty years ago, pastors were able to use the words “synod” and “missions” virtually interchangeably. Congregational members had confidence that their faith-produced gifts to “synod” were gifts for “missions.” This change in purpose has indeed caused a disconnect. This has not made pastors and people “anti-synod.” But it has led many pastors to be less willing to advocate for the synod, because they sense that its mission-centered purpose has been diluted. It has led congregational members to become less eager to give to “synod” because they are no longer convinced that a gift to synod is a gift to missions.
2. The sense that the “Kingdom Balance” approach to budgeting, as understood and applied by synodical leaders in recent years, is distinctly at variance with the convictions of the synod’s constituents and the directives of recent synodical conventions. As a matter of history, the original use of the term “kingdom balance” was a reference to para-synodical efforts rather than an approach to “balancing” the areas of ministry in WELS.
3. The perceived lack of responsiveness by synodical leaders to the input of the grass roots. There is a sense of that the leaders of the synod are disconnected from the constituents of the synod and do not fully recognize this disconnect.
4. The proposals by synodical leadership to increase centralization of decision-making and authority, potentially aggravating the sense of disconnect between the synod and the people who comprise the synod.
5. The apparent view of some synodical leaders that it is the synod’s role to lead congregations and members to increased spiritual health and more faithful stewardship, when, in fact, that responsibility lies at the congregational level, as gospel is proclaimed and the Spirit accomplishes his sanctifying work through the means of grace.
6. The loss of the credibility of synodical leaders because of what many perceive to be inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent, contradictory, and unresponsive communication. There is the perception that synodical communications often seem to ignore, minimize, over-simplify, or sugar-coat problems rather than to address them.
7. The threat to synodical unity brought about by the formation of groups viewed as either “traditional” or “progressive” in their approach to ministry, mission, and worship
8. The development of adversarial relationships among areas of ministry brought about in part by budgets and decisions that seem to pit one area against another
9. The perceived inability of the Conference of Presidents to take a strong pro-active approach to leadership and direction, especially in matters where it differs in the approach taken by the Synodical Council
10. A structure which does not enable the Conference of Presidents to have meaningful input on budget priorities, even though the COP is the body charged with funding the budget. The original recommendation of the Independent Panel on restructuring would distance the COP even farther from financial responsibilities by removing the current responsibility of funding the budget from the COP and assigning it to the Synodical Council.
11. The proliferation of WELS-affiliated ministries and organizations, which draw increasing financial support from congregations and individuals and which bring about a loss of focus in synodical efforts and a loss of support for the core priorities of the synod
12. The tendency of synodical leadership to react to financial shortages by repeated reductions in our mission and educational programs with no clear plan to provide a long term solution
13. The tendency of synodical leaders to blame the synod’s financial crisis on poor stewardship, rather that recognizing that it may be a result of faithful stewards determining that their gifts may be better utilized elsewhere because they disagree with the current priorities of the synod
14. The recent proposal of a business model for top down management in spite of the previous efforts to have areas of ministry function from a grassroots base
15. All of the factors listed above have combined to create a crisis in confidence in the synod’s leadership and direction—a situation in which those who are to lead are no longer being wholeheartedly followed
There will be those who deny the existence of many of the problems listed above. Some will take issue with individual points and dismiss the validity of the entire list. But the purpose of listing these problems is to demonstrate an undeniable atmosphere of growing pessimism, uncertainty, and lack of confidence among many of our clergy and lay members. Rather than explain away the problems, deny their existence, or dismiss them as imaginary, it is time to find ways to work together to solve them. Decisive action is necessary—not as an exercise in casting blame or inciting division, but rather as a positive means to change the direction of the synod in order to restore confidence, unity, the carrying out of our mission, and the spread of God’s kingdom.
In summary, we believe that it would be a mistake to characterize the synodical crisis as primarily financial in nature, as so many do. The financial shortages, rather, are a symptom of a different, deeper problem—a problem that involves the very purpose and nature of the synod and a loss of confidence that the synod is heading in the right direction.
Some of the individual problems facing us can be solved relatively quickly and simply. Others can be addressed only over time and with much effort. The short term solutions are primarily structural and procedural in nature; the long term solutions are primarily spiritual and philosophical, as the gospel generates a change in thinking and attitudes, as God’s people grow in their stewardship, and as we once again reach agreement on the true nature and purpose of the synod. Certainly, the first means to solve any problems is to approach the throne of grace and ask God to guide and motivate all discussions and decisions.
A Road Map for Change
No positive change ever takes place without a plan to bring it about. No solutions to problems are ever found without serious analysis and discussion. And no real, God-pleasing progress can be made without a firm commitment to look to the Lord of the Church to guide and bless what we do.
What follows are concrete proposals to address some of the most pressing problems. Some of the suggested steps may be more important than others. Some may be only the starting point for godly discussion. And certainly there are other ideas and actions that are not listed here. But this proposal is respectfully intended to be a beginning that must, with God’s help, be made now.
This proposal to “Reclaim the Mission” involves a committed change of direction in the following areas:
1. Reaffirming our purpose and priorities
2. Re-defining our method of support
3. Restoring clear, responsible, and responsive lines of authority
4. Re-establishing effective communication
5. Reviewing and revising current programs
Action 1: Reaffirming our purpose and priorities
1A. Re-affirm the historic purpose and priorities
1A-1 The synod in convention shall re-affirm the core priorities adopted overwhelmingly by the 2005 convention. In re-affirming those priorities, the convention will reiterate that the purpose of the synod is not to lead but to serve; that is it not a denomination or an over-arching structure to oversee member congregations, but rather primarily an instrument to facilitate, foster, and enhance joint kingdom work
1A-2 The convention shall direct the synod president to communicate to the members of the synod his wholehearted support for the adopted priorities and his commitment to see those priorities funded adequately.
1A-3 The convention shall declare that the responsibility for preaching the gospel and for administering the Means of Grace lies primarily at the congregational level. The synod is not to be equated with a large congregation of 400,000 members; rather it is simply to be an orderly, effective, and efficient mechanism or instrument for congregations and members to carry out joint kingdom work—a means for us to do together what we cannot easily do separately.
1A-4 The synod shall direct the synod president and the Synodical Council to adopt a budget which reflects the established priorities, with strong and primary emphasis on missions and ministerial education and with substantial reductions in all areas as necessary (including programs in core areas which can be eliminated or altered). Any contention that “no further reallocation of funds is possible” and that “no cuts can be made in other areas” shall be rejected as misleading or inaccurate, since reallocation is always possible depending on budgetary priorities.
1B. Conduct a thorough review of the synod’s programs in light of established priorities
1B-1 The synod in convention shall direct the synod president to conduct a thorough review of all programs of the synod and give him the authority to eliminate any programs and staff that, even though they may be good and beneficial, are not necessary to support the primary mission of the synod. This gives the president the specific authority and responsibility to carry out the expressed will of the convention. It also recognizes an authority to terminate divine calls under the directives of the synod convention. In carrying out this process, the president is not to act independently, but will seek the counsel and input of various groups, especially the Conference of Presidents and the Synodical Council.
1B-2 The president’s review shall include programs and staffing in the all budget and program areas, including, but not limited to, communications, technology, fiscal services, consultants’ fees, Christian giving, debt structuring, benefit plans, meetings, parish services, and travel. The president will also examine the budgets of the priority programs and will eliminate lower-priority, unnecessary, or unproductive items.
1B-3 This review shall be carried out with input from the grassroots constituency of the synod, including input from every pastoral conference and the COP. The president will consult with various synodical groups and individuals to determine the most effective way of seeking this input.
Action 2: Restructuring our method of support
2A. Adopt a new approach to funding the synod’s mission (see Appendix 1)
Congregational and individual mission offerings have not kept pace with the cost of operating the current programs of WELS, much less increased sufficiently to allow for an expansion of mission efforts. At the same time, overall giving in WELS for all purposes has grown significantly over the past decade.
Sixty WELS congregations provide no financial support for the synod of which they are a part; 120 congregations give less than $10 per communicant to the synod. (The synod average is $65 per communicant.)
There may be many reasons for the current level of synodical support. Congregations and their members are being asked to support dozens of programs and organizations that did not exist a generation ago. But it seems clear that one primary reason for the small increase in giving to the synod is the conviction, both by people in the pew and by pastors, that offerings to “synod” are no longer necessarily seen as offerings to “missions.” Years ago, those two terms could be—and were—used interchangeably, both by people who gave the offerings and by pastors who encouraged members to give. Over the past decade, as the synod expanded its programs beyond what are seen as priority areas, many members and pastors are increasingly uncertain and even skeptical that their gifts are really going to support missions. We need to take steps to once again allow people and pastors to equate “missions” with “synod” and to be confident that when they give to WELS their offerings will be used to do together what we cannot do separately.
To restore the connection between the core mission of the synod and its people, the synod shall fund the necessary administrative costs (“administrative” is defined as all programs outside of the established priority areas of ministry, i.e. world missions, home missions, ministerial education, and church-wide publications such as hymnals, catechisms, and official magazine) through a synodical membership subscription (based on communicant membership) paid by all WELS congregations. If a congregation is a member of WELS, (thus benefiting from WELS programs and from called workers trained by WELS), that congregation will be happy to provide at least a minimum amount to fund the infrastructure that provides those services. Congregations would handle this fee as a line item in their budgets, just as they do VEBA insurance and pension costs. Everything gathered beyond this subscription amount as mission offerings would be freely given by congregations and individuals as a true offering for missions and training missionaries. The amount of the fee—initially suggested as $25 per communicant—would be established by the synod in convention and raised only with convention approval.
The result is that 100% of Congregational Mission Offerings (CMO) and undesignated Individual Mission Offerings (IMO) will be earmarked for the established priorities of the synod. All necessary non-core and non-priority programs and administrative costs would be covered by the membership subscription. This will insure that every dollar freely given to the synod (whether by congregations or by individuals) is used only for the core priority areas of the synod’s work. In doing this, five things can happen: 1) Members will be assured that their mission offerings are truly offerings for missions and will regain confidence in their giving for mission; 2) Pastors, knowing that gifts to synod are truly gifts for missions, will be eager to encourage increased mission offerings. 3) The synodical membership subscription would enlist at least minimal support for the operation of the synod from every congregation. 4) Good and necessary activities, including those pastoral functions of the Conference of Presidents (such as the pastoral assistants for district presidents and the support for needy called workers and their families, etc.) will be fully funded. 5) It can also be safely assumed that, as confidence grows, the newly defined CMO and IMO (individual mission offerings) would grow with it.
Two examples: St. Luke is a congregation of 1,000 communicants. It’s current CMO is $100,000. St. Luke would take the suggested synodical membership subscription ($25 per communicant—see the appendix) of $25,000 and place it as a line item in the congregation’s budget, with the amount to be paid with such things as pension and VEBA payments. This would leave $75,000 as the congregation’s CMO. Every penny of the $75,000 would be used to fund the core priorities of the synod. Every penny given would be an offering for missions. At the very start, St. Luke would not be increasing what it sends to the synod. There would be no additional burden to the congregation’s budget. In a very short time, however, as pastors and people regain the confidence that their mission offerings are being used for missions, that $75,000 is likely to grow significantly.
In a second example, St. John is a congregation of 100 members which, for whatever reason, gives nothing to the synod. It would be required, since it belongs to the synod and benefits from its programs, to submit $2,500 as its synodical membership subscription. In doing this, St. John is still not contributing to missions, but at least it is carrying out its responsibility to support the administrative infrastructure. It would not be surprising that in this same congregation, the members themselves would see the importance and need to devote at least some of their offerings for missions.
Several objections to this plan may be raised. Some will try to discredit this approach by labeling it an “ecclesiastical fee” or a “return to the pew tax.” It is neither. Rather, it is simply the recognition that the synod does have legitimate and necessary administrative expenses and that all congregations and members who desire to be a part of the synod have a true responsibility to contribute a fair (and minimum) share. Some will contend that this proposal is legalistic and that gospel-motivation is lacking. In fact, it is no more legalistic than sending congregations bills for the health insurance they provide for called workers, for the payments congregations make for pensions, or for repayment of a CEF loan. The motivation never enters the picture when a congregation makes payments for its obligations. Gospel motivation takes place in the heart of the giver as he brings his thank offerings to the Lord. Some may feel that membership in the synod has always been confessional rather than financial. But confessional unity ought naturally to translate into a desire and responsibility to support what you confess with the dollars you give.
Action 3: Restoring clear, responsible, and responsive lines of authority
3A. Clarify the authority of the Synod Convention and the Synodical Council
3A-1 The constitution of the synod shall be revised to remove or highly restrict the ability of the president and/or the Synodical Council to ignore or significantly alter synodical resolutions between conventions. Provision shall be made to allow emergency SC action to carry out—but not to undo—synodical decisions. Conventions should set the general priorities for programs to be implemented or discontinued, depending on the level of funding available. To enable the synod convention to made major decisions between conventions, we should explore the possibility of re-convening conventions through electronic means when necessary.
3A-2 We shall reaffirm the constitutional principle that the final decision-making authority in the synod is the synod in convention. We shall declare clear opposition to ideas, suggestions, or proposals to change the synod convention into a “reporting and rejoicing” body rather than a decision-making body.
3A-3 We shall defeat any proposal to have all area administrators called by the Synodical Council rather than by their grass-roots elected boards.
3A-4 We shall affirm that the synod president is directly responsible to the synod in convention (the calling body), not to the Synodical Council
3A-5 We shall plan and structure synod conventions in a way that enables more effective and informed decision-making, with emphasis on sharing information prior to the convention and dedication of more convention time to significant decision-making rather than to reports and public relations.
3B. Enhance and emphasize the leadership role for the Conference of Presidents
3B-1 The Conference of Presidents shall be provided with the ability to give increased input and direction as planning and decisions are made. The COP must be given the opportunity and responsibility to work more closely with the SC in program and budget decisions. Since the Conference of Presidents is composed of leaders who have a direct connection with the called workers and lay members of the synod, their wisdom and expertise should be extensively utilized, not marginalized. One way to accomplish this is through a joint meeting of the SC and the COP early in the budget process, insuring that both groups have the opportunity to input and discussion.
3B-2 We shall reject any plan to make the Conference of Presidents responsible to the Synodical Council.
3B-3 We shall reaffirm the role of the Conference of Presidents in overseeing both doctrine and practice.
3B-4 The president shall work with the COP in formulating a plan to address the concerns of synodical members and groups in the area of fellowship, worship, and outreach strategies. The COP shall work to address the concerns of various groups such as Church and Change and Issues in WELS, mindful that such groups arise when concerns and problems appear to be unaddressed by synodical leadership.
Action 4: Re-establishing effective communication
4A. Require clear, open, and accurate communication
4A-1 The synod president shall communicate clearly the challenges and issues confronting the synod with no spin or gloss. Within three months after the 2007 convention, he shall develop and deliver an accurate “State of the Synod” report, analyzing and summarizing the both the positive and successful elements, as well as the problems facing the synod today. The report should include a thorough and accurate evaluation and analysis of the past 5-10 years—detailing losses in membership, cuts in world missions, lack of home mission openings, reductions in support for ministerial education, fracturing of the synod’s unity in purpose and spirit, etc. The report shall also communicate a clear plan for addressing problems and for expanding the synod’s efforts to carry the gospel to the world.
4A-2 Special efforts shall be made to insure that communication is seen as two-way, as the synodical leaders communicate to members and as members are encouraged to communicate with responsive leaders.
4A-3 The synod president shall direct a study of the various communications tools and methods currently used and shall formulate a plan to streamline and coordinate all communications done in the name of the synod or any of its agencies
4A-4 The synod president shall direct the synod’s fiscal office to investigate ways to streamline the synod’s accounting structure, with special emphasis on simplifying and reducing the number of special funds, as well as developing a means to communicate the synod’s financial picture in a clear, simple, and understandable manner. Comprehensive budget information is to be included in the 2008 Report to the Twelve Districts and in the 2009 Book of Reports and Memorials.
4B. Give accurate picture of the reductions that have taken place in world missions
In the area of world missions, we have justified and defended the withdrawal of world missionaries from various fields by saying that our withdrawal enables national churches to stand on their own. This may be true in some locations at particular times, but the fact remains that in at least some cases the withdrawals were driven by finances rather than by the conditions in the mission field. It’s also a fact that the total number of world missionaries has been significantly reduced. We shall be accurate and open in our portrayal of these reductions, and we will be careful not to give the impression that a reduction in world mission manpower for financial reasons alone is a desirable or good thing. This is not to argue against new approaches in carrying out mission work, since many of the new approaches may indeed be beneficial to the spread of the gospel. In general, mission manpower withdrawn from a field for the right reasons should be redeployed to other fields.
4C. Give an accurate picture of the reductions that have taken place in home missions
In the area of home missions, traditional mission starts have dwindled to near zero. We have stated that, while we are not opening new home missions in the traditional sense, we are beginning dozens of new “ministries.” Presenting cutbacks in mission openings in this way gives the impression that we are doing as much or more now than before. Establishing a new ministry program, even one which utilizes full time pastoral manpower, is not the equivalent of opening a new home mission, and it should not be portrayed as such.
Action 5: Reviewing and revising current programs
5A. Investigate cost-efficient support programs
The synod shall continue to investigate cost-effective alternatives to WELS VEBA and improvements in the pension plan. Christian love demands that we provide adequate health care to our workers; Christian stewardship demands that we find the most economical way to provide it.
5B. Re-visit synodical salaries and staffing
5B-1 Since many qualified lay people would desire to serve in the church if the opportunity were given, the synod shall adopt a policy that states that, as a general rule, lay employees of the synod will be compensated at roughly the same levels as called administrative workers, not at rates dictated by the secular market place.
5B-2 The salary of the president should be established by the synod in convention, not by the Synodical Council.
5B-3 We shall publish all salaries or salary ranges for all synodical workers; we shall publish regularly the number of positions employed in the administrative areas of the synod.
5B-4 We shall explore whether outsourcing work is an economical alternative to permanent staffing.
5C. Incorporate and coordinate para-synodical efforts into the overall priorities of the synod
We shall work to reverse the fracturing of the synod’s programs, member support, and institutional focus by incorporating appropriate para-synodical efforts into the overall program and planning of the synod as appropriate. This does not imply that these para-synodical groups would be funded by the synod’s budget. Rather, it would insure that the programs of these groups are in keeping with the overall priorities of WELS and are considered in the planning process. WELS as a church body must re-assert some degree of control over the many organizations operating under the WELS banner. Supporters of para-synodical organizations shall be encouraged to recognize that support for para-synodical efforts should not come at the expense of support for the broader mission of the synod
5D. Increase world and home mission manpower and openings
5D-1 We shall adopt the goal of increasing foreign expatriate mission manpower by 20% or more over the next four years, while continuing and expanding the training of national pastors and church workers with the intent of fostering indigenous churches.
5D-2 We shall adopt the goal of increasing traditional home mission starts to 5-10 per year, while continuing to explore and encourage innovative methods of planting churches.
5E. Fund Ministerial Education at an adequate level
5E-1 We shall provide adequate support for ministerial education, insuring that the schools are adequately funded and able to carry out their assigned tasks.
5E-2 We shall make it a goal to set tuition at MLC at a level equivalent to tuition charged by typical state universities and to set tuition at the prep schools at a level equivalent to the average tuition at area Lutheran high schools. Limiting tuition costs will enable enrollments at the schools to rise, since it is commonly recognized that the increased cost of education to parents and students is one of the primary reasons for recent enrollment declines.
5F. Long Term Debt
Current debt service consumes millions of dollars annually—money which could be utilized for gospel outreach and other necessary synodical programs. Every effort should be made to present a thorough summary and explanation of all long-term external or internal debts, along with plans for timely amortization. We shall investigate all possible means to reduce and eliminate more quickly those debts.
Conclusion
In recent years the synod has dealt with its financial problems primarily by cutting budgets and programs, by pleading for increased support from congregations and individuals, and by taking steps to insure financial accountability. But the financial problems have only persisted and grown worse. It seems clear that we have been treating the symptoms but have not confronted the deeper malady.
This proposal is intended to respond to what appears to be the actual problem: the disconnect between the synod and its people and the loss of focus and direction at the synodical level.
It is our prayer that the Lord of the church will guide us in these difficult times. It is our prayer that he will give us both the wisdom to make the correct decisions as well as the courage and conviction to carry them out. It is our prayer that the Lord would give us the joy of serving in his kingdom, a faith that trusts in his promises, and a unified spirit as we do his work. And, most of all, it is our prayer that the Lord will bless our efforts, knowing that it is only with his help and strength that we can succeed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix 1 The Synod Membership Subscription (SMS)
Each WELS congregation is required to remit an annual Synod membership subscription in the amount of $25 per communicant; this fee would cover the cost of the administrative and non-core programs of the synod
Congregations would be expected to include this amount as a line item in their local budgets. Congregations would be free to shift this amount from their current CMO total if they choose
All CMO and IMO offerings would be used to fund the core priority programs of the synod
This system would insure that necessary administrative programs are funded, and it would assure that all congregational mission offerings are truly for missions and training called workers
From the 2005 Statistical Report
WELS Communicant members: 313,000
Total CMO* $ 20,230,000
Average Per Communicant: $ 65
*does not include congregations closed in 2006
63 congregations gave -0- to WELS
120 congregations gave less than $10 per communicant
250 congregations gave less than $25
Scenarios:
If all congregations were required to submit a $25 Synod membership subscription (to cover non-core programs), the synod would receive an additional $600,000 per year. This would happen even if all other congregations take the $25 Synod membership subscription from existing CMO totals
Example: St. John is a congregation of 120 communicants which currently remits no financial support for the synod’s budget. If St. John remits the $25 Synod membership subscription, synod will receive $3,000 in revenue and St. John would cover its cost of synod membership and services.
If congregations increase their congregational mission offering (all funds beyond the $25 synod subscription fee) by 5%, it would result in an additional $700,000 in mission support received, for a total of an additional $1,300,000
Example: St. Paul is a congregation of 500 communicants which currently remits $50,000 to the synod. If it takes the synod membership subscription from its current total (500 members x $25= $12,500) and increases the remaining $37,500 by 5%, it would remit an additional $1,875 for missions.
If congregations increase their congregational mission offering by 10%, it would result in an additional $1,400,000 in mission support for a total of $2,000,000 in additional support
Example: If the same congregation increases is mission offering by 10%, it would result in a $3,750 increase in its support for missions
If all congregations pay the Synod membership subscription in addition to their current mission offering level, the increase would be an additional $ 7,825,000 in mission support. Example: St. Mark is a congregation of 400 communicants which currently gives $50,000 to the synod. If St. Mark adds the entire Synod membership subscription to its total ($10,000) it will result an increase of $10,000 for mission support.
Conclusion: While the last scenario will not happen immediately, it should be the goal that within 3 – 5 years all congregations have increased their CMO to the levels prior to deducting the synodical membership subscription. This can be accomplished as pastors are once again able to encourage increases in CMO as increases in mission support.
These figures do not even take into account an expected increase in Individual Mission Offerings as individuals also realize that their offerings are being used for mission and not administrative purposes.
Appendix 2: Suggested resolution for adoption as a recommendation to the 2007 Synod Convention
Whereas, a) The document entitled “Reclaim the Mission” identifies and describes many of the problems and challenges facing the synod today; and
Whereas, b) The document accurately reflects the heartfelt concerns of many WELS members, both lay and clergy; and
Whereas, c) The tone of the document is positive in its attempt to avoid blame and to offer positive solutions; and
Whereas, d) The document identifies five key areas of concern that must be addressed, namely
Reaffirming our purpose and priorities
Re-defining our method of support
Restoring clear, responsible, and responsive lines of authority
Re-establishing effective communication
Reviewing and revising current programs; and
Whereas, e) There is now no viable comprehensive plan to address these problems other than to appeal to the synod’s members for increased offerings; and
Whereas, f) This document offers a multi-part strategy to address the problems cited; and
Whereas, g) If adopted, the successful implementation of this plan will require synodical leaders who are fully committed to following it; therefore be it
RESOLVED 1) That we declare our support of this proposal and the steps it outlines; and be it further
RESOLVED 2) That this plan be presented to the 2007 synod in convention for discussion and adoption; and be it finally
RESOLVED 3) That the convention planners place this issue on the agenda at a point prior to any elections.
