Monday, March 2, 2009
Corky Koeplin's Paper, 1992 - Ipsissima Verba
REFLECTIONS, CONCERNS, AND QUESTIONS
ABOUT OUR BELOVED WELS – 1992
Why is it that after a fairly long life, thirty-nine years of which have been spent in the public ministry of our dear synod, three questions, somewhat similar in content, persistently come to mind?
1. “WELS, oh WELS, wherefore art thou my WELS?”
2. The song title: “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered”
3. “Oh foolish, WELS, who hath bewitched you?”
Why on earth do I feel at times like a traumatized lover, a Blue’s singer and an ancient Galatian? What is the cause, or are the causes, for a soul’s deep distress? Perhaps it isn’t at all strange to find comfort in the fact that I am not alone in my anxiety and concern. Multiple scores of brothers throughout the length and breadth of synod, covering the spectrum of ages and types of pastoral services, share all or most of these distressing concerns. These are good men; tried, true blue and tested in the crucible of devoted service to Christ and the synod. Some few are honored “em’s”; some seminary professors; some full-time or part-time synod or district administrators. The vast majority are evangelical parish pastors whose work and lives center squarely on the proclamation of the saving Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They abhor legalism, eschew extremism, while craving balance and moderation in judgment. If someone insists on a label, try: “Progressive-Conservative.”
At the risk of missing a few key points, -- a “P-C” is:
A. pleased to be rooted in the Scriptural and the Lutheran Confessions and yet is not afraid to “try something new or different”;
B. in love with the King James version but uses a more modern English translation in both pulpit and readings;
C. happy to be Christian, Lutheran and WELS;
D. virtually a workaholic, but knows full well that whatever good results are strictly due to the gracious work of the Spirit and whatever “bad” results are due to human inadequacies, his;
E. not afraid to launch out into deep “at Thy word,” but prays fervently for an extra measure of uncommon sanctified sense so that the “new” does not get in the way of the Spirit’s work;
F. not hankering for, longing for, or pining after a return to the “good old days.” But, while recognizing that change and new are inevitable, wants to be certain that the changes are rooted in our WELS heritage and not because of some outside and strange shepherd-teacher or ecclesiastical heritage;
G. quick to recognize and say that non-WELS folk may indeed have some good ideas and sound methods which we may “sanitize,” adapt and adopt, but only if the terminology employed has not been co-opted by the heterodox so as to confuse the faithful rather than edify them.
-2-
In short, these dear brothers are not fanatical “headhunters” nor do they subscribe in any form or fashion to some sort of a “conspiracy theory “that” someone” or “some group” is quietly and persistently trying to drag the WELS to “the left” into the 21st century. However, rejecting that nonsense does not still the anxious hearts either. What is it, rather than who is it, that “troubleth Israel/WELS”? Our concerns can perhaps be summed up into six major categories to whit:
1. A Synodical Drift.
2. The “Business” of the Church Supplanting the Work of the Church.
3. An Unhealthy Inroad of “Church Growth.”
4. A Top Heavy Administration.
5. A Denigration of the Holy Ministry.
6. A Dismantling of the Worker Training System.
Before we look at these items individually, one or two things should be said at the outset. We freely grant that many, if not most of the items listed fall into the category of “feelings,” “impressions,” “observations” and/or “perceptions.” All of the assertions can be flatly denied. But deniability does not obviate reality even if the reality may indeed be somewhat nebulous. Even as we are free to say that Christian brothers of good heart and intent will not and do not agree with our assessments, so also do we ask that the same characterizations be granted to those who respectfully disagree with the assumption that “all is well in the WELS.” Give us the courtesy of a brotherly and thoughtful hearing when we say, “there is – something – an ecclesiastical bug – if you will, that is threatening and attacking the body of corporate WELS and let’s get it now before we wind up in an intensive care ward. No, WELS is not “sick unto death!” By the same token, please grant that “Mother WELS” has more than a simple case of the sniffles.
1. “A SYNODICAL DRIFT”
Yea verily, this concern is perhaps the hardest one to quantify and the most difficult to articulate. Granted, it is a feeling, a perception. But it is also, in our judgment, real enough to be felt and perceived by a rising number of synodical historians, insiders, outsiders and watchers. Again, in our judgment, our beloved WELS is adrift in a sea of indecision. It does not seem to know where it’s going nor how to get there. It seems to lack a unifying focus as it once had in the years immediately following the breakup of the Synodical Conference. It was a mission church on fire for Christ, and from the humble parish pastor in Pumpkin Junction to the high echelon of leadership –‘ most every pastor zeroed in on getting the gospel of Jesus out to a dying and needy world. Say what you will, that driving passion is not present today. Instead we find rising numbers of parish pastors who, to an ever increasing degree, have pronounced a pox on the mail people who deliver rafts of directives, injunctions, appeals, updates (as opposed
-3-
to down dates), and notices of workshops, seminars and skill sharpening sessions all streaming forth Niagara-like from “2929.” They’ve simply “withdrawn”; will do only those synodical “things” that they absolutely “have to,” – but without enthusiasm. Far too many of the foot soldiers of Jesus have said by their lack of gung ho response: “Hey, ‘synod,’ bug off! I’ll work my heart out and my head off in my local vineyard; just leave me alone! You solicit my support, but only if support begins and ends with $$$$ and evermore of them. My advice and counsel is not sought, and if by chance an honest question is raised, it is brushed aside as either being “false” or one raised out of ignorance in not seeing ‘the big picture.’ Hey, O.K. if I’m too ill-informed to get it, go fetch it without me. I pass.” Now apparently “someone” in 2929 may have sensed something of this because “Mission Vision 2,000+” appeared and was adopted with great fanfare at a reasonably recent synod convention. It paints pictures. It sets goals. It lays out plans. It has objectives. It contains numbers for every division, sub-division and unit of synod. It also, unfortunately and factually, falls far short of being the unifying force and rallying point that perhaps it was intended to be. The document is seriously, if not fatally flawed.
You cannot take a document born out of “dreams” (“If there were neither restraints of men and money, where/what would like to see our synod be, go and do next year, three years, five years, ten years from now? Dare to dream a little and let not your dreams be small.”) and then when reality and expectation do not come together, draw the conclusion that somehow we are “failing” as a synod because MV 2000+ says so!
While it is most certainly true that we are confident that not one of our pastoral brothers, synod-wide, does not freely confess from the heart that “the Spirit works;when and where He wills, and is solely responsible for the increase,” nonetheless, numbers, statistics, percentages, growth patterns (or lack thereof), and the ubiquitous bottom-line have SEEMINGLY been cited with alarming regularity. Numbers (not the biblical book), have SEEMINGLY achieved an unhealthy status in our circles.
One of the by-products of the bottom-line fetish has been that many of our parish pastoral brothers have been given yet another ticket for an unwanted, unnecessary, unasked for and unappreciated guilt trip. These distressed brothers have in turn adopted a defensive mode which has also resulted in a rising confrontational stance, “2929” versus “us.”
It is inevitable that this question arises: “Who Is Running the Synod?” We speak not concerning those matters where the Word has clearly spoken, but rather, “Who Is In Charge? Who Sets the Direction? Who Points the Direction Where We Should Be Going and What and How We Should Be Doing It?”
-4-
Is it: a) the General President and the Praesidium?
b) the Coordinating Council?
c) the Board of Trustees?
d) the Conference of Presidents?
e) the Synod in Convention?
f) all of the above?
g) none the above?
h) a combination of the above?
At the present there seems to be a large amount of confusion as to who is supposed to do what. Are we run by a Board of Directors, titled in the WELS, the Coordinating Council? Are we run by the Board of Trustees? Is it a shared responsibility between these two boards?
Constitutionally the lines are clear. But in fact, the reality is a whole lot less clearly defined which has resulted in “The Drift.” How do the district presidents, full-time pastors, and part-time administrators fit into this equation? Again, constitutionally they seem to be restricted to “spiritual matters.” They seem to have little or no voice in practical policy and programs of synod. Is this wise? Is this truly in the best interest of the synodiacal “good and welfare?” The upshot of all this is that there is no clear, insistent clarion call to united action. The trumpet seems to be muted and that, to us, is distressing.
2. THE “BUSINESS” OF THE CHURCH SUPPLANTING
THE “WORK” OF THE CHRUCH
The second concern is like unto the first. Indeed, it is related. Since the mid-eighties it seems that more and more (all) of our WELS – work has fallen under a financial microscope. This is a mixed blessing. On the one hand , none of us are that obtuse not to recognize that money, offerings, the synod dollar, the financial resources the Lord places into our hand; call it what you will, is the “mother’s milk to church work.” Missionaries, professors, et al. need to be salaried/supported. Utilities, vendors of all sorts and description need to be satisfied with legal tender. Secondly, who will argue with good stewardship? Properly understood, the terms, like unto “careful money management,” “maximum results,” “accountability,” – even “more bang for the buck” take on an almost benign air. On the other hand, we do take some umbrage over money calling the shots; decisions which are financially driven; the financial tail wagging the mission dog. Now
-5-
lest some feel that the terminology is both too judgmental or pejorative, kindly permit a brief demonstration to illustrate their aptness. I shall cite but four programs which started out on a pious and devoted “wish list,” captured the heart, interest and imagination of a God-fearing, Christ-believing Christian and are now up and running as part of a synodical budgetary program:
a) Brazil;
b) Taiwan #4;
c) Germany/Eastern Europe (Two year, two men to assist our brothers who formerly were in East Germany;
d) the seminary graduate to the CIR (Russia)
Now understand, NONE of these programs are bad, bad, bad,! On the contrary, they are good! We rejoice, thank and praise a gracious God that He moved the hearts of monetarily blessed Christians to see a special need and have the wherewithal to make something good happen. But that is not the point. These four world mission illustrations hopefully serve to demonstrate that in all innocence and honesty a pliosophical/theological inversion has occurred. We seemingly have gone from, “There’s the Lord’s work, let’s find the money to do it”; to: “There’s the Lord’s work, let’s check our bottom-line to see how much of it we can do.” There is a vast difference, not at all subtle, between the two approaches to “the Lord’s Work.” We know that the WELS cannot do it all. We know that our inability to do it all should not, must not, prevent us from doing all that we can. We know that it takes “someone” to exercise leadership and that “someone” must exercise “value judgments.”
What seems to be missing in these value judgments is the Faith Factor, an unquantifiable attitude of heart and mid-set. It will appear in no computer spread sheet. One cannot attach a number to it on an accountant’s ledger. But, in the Lord’s work, in the “business” of the church, it must be taken into account as “bottom-lines” are scrutinized and evaluated! Parish pastors, hopefully all pastors, know whereof we speak. In a congregation, when the pastor(s) and perhaps key leadership are convinced that a new project which will cost money is in the best interest of: the good and welfare of the kingdom; is the product of prayer, planning and analysis; is both the work and will of God, --but does not have the full cost of the project firmly in hand- four phrases will be sounded by someone in the voters’ assembly just as sure as crabgrass grows bigger and quicker than good lawn seed:
a) “we’ve got to be practical”;
b) “we’ve got to be realistic”;
c) “ we can’t afford it”;
d) “we’ve got to count the cost before we go into battle.”
-6-
Confidently looking for and expecting the blessing of God is NOT “practical” nor “realistic.” It’s the faith factor! “Can’t afford it” is a matter of sanctified Christian judgment while, surely, it is a RARE WELS pastoral bird who ignores the biblical injunction concerning “cost counting.”
We are not aware of a single WELS parish that does NOT have a budget. Similarly there isn’t one around that constructs its budget on its bank or checkbook balance. Likewise the parish does not exist that first takes commitments and then, on the basis of what the commitment total is, - construct the budge. Neither does our synod. Congregations and the synod take into account those who are unwilling to commit/“pledge” (but have, will, and do bring gifts), incidental offerings, special gifts, wills, bequests, and the Faith Factor. We recognize our responsibility; we accept it; we set about, under God to do it.
Our God does, in a very real sense, ask us to “crawl out on a limb.” He, on the other hand, promises not to saw it off behind us. It seems too many of us that we today, in our synod, have business expertise, business, acumen, business efficiency, and business techniques. We also seem to have in abundance, practical thinkers who deal in realism and are great in cost counting and accounting. What seems to be in short supply is a mind-set, that risks, dares, and is sure that the faith factor is not dreamy idealism. Has the time come to find the answer to the questions: “Is the Lord’s business (WELS) business – a business?” “Is the Lord’s business the same as any other large multi-national corporation?” “Can we apply the same business principles which are good, tried and true on the “outside” to the WELS?”
Maybe all of the horror stories of the 30’s, those terrible times when our synod was in deep financial trouble, when professors and what few home missionaries we had waited for “short” checks, -- maybe we still bear the deep psychological scars which that near bankrupt condition placed upon our WELS soul. But we now ask, one-half a century later, and just that much closer to The Day, have we become not just “fiscally conservative,” but a timid and frightened synod, who if we can’t see it on our bottom- lines, if we can’t put our finger into the black and white numbers, -- we will not believe in a nebulous “faith factor”. What we respectfully ask is that the questions be addressed via a study of Scripture and perhaps settle the unsettling perception that we’ve somehow reversed how we carry out the Lord’s work, the business of the WELS.
3. “AN UNHEALTHY INFLUENCE OF CHURCH GROWTH”
It is precisely in the area of this concern that our “nervous needle” jumps off the
-7-
meter. What on earth is happening in our WELS? Some seem to be “talking funny” and regional accents have nothing to do with it. Our once common theological language is undergoing a metamorphosis so that either we yearn for parenthetical explanation or a translator or both, to explain what is meant when these foreign-to-WELS-words are used. What manner of language is being used? For want of a better descriptive term, we’ll call it: “CG-speak.” Kindly permit a few examples:
a) Apparently we are not to shepherd God’s flock any longer, we are to “minister” to them.
b) Apparently it’s somewhat passé to teach our people “whatsoever I have commanded you,” we “disciple” them.
c) Instead of “leading people into the pleasant pastures of the word and giving them to drink of the Living Water,” we now are to “nurture” them.
d) People are to “grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The biblical quote is less seen than the words “discipling” and “nurturing.”
e) Although we’ve been “saved to serve,” now we should think of a variety of “ministries,” such as “the ministry of leaf raking,” “the ministry of snow shoveling” and “the ministry of greeting.” Not to be overlooked is the wonderful fun ministry, “the ministry of valet parking.!”
f) Care should be taken that our services, in addition to being the usual edifying, should also be “user friendly.” Additional care should be taken to avoid the name, Lutheran, since it is “well known”(?) that the name, Lutheran is a “turnoff” (in sharp contrast to being “turned on” by “entertainment evangelism” and that marvelous “user friendly” service).
At this point, before proceeding, it perhaps would be wise to comment briefly on the Church Growth Movement itself before proceeding to “CG-speak.” We acknowledge that not everything is rotten about CGM. There are some few so-called “common sense” things (a misnomer), that many have done or are doing as an automatic. For example, is there a WELS pastor around who does not emphasize that the congregation’s ushers should look neat, clean, tidy and well dressed, as well as giving off an aura of friendly welcome as they distribute the worship folders of the day? What disturbs us is the origin, the authorship and the theological heritage of CGM. Although it is used by lawyers, to some of us the “poison fruit” terminology with reference to bodies of evidence, seems to not be fit, but apply in the case of CGM. Luther identified it as “the other of different spirit” at Marburg. He did not classify his opponent as a non-Christian antagonist; but Ulrich badly needed a theological attitude adjustment. The upshot of this is that WELS Lutherans do not leave
-8-
“Wittenberg” and take excursions into “Geneva” to see what “good things” we can pick up, use and ingest. We feel that the warning label, “Poison Fruit,” should be printed in bold type and affixed to all things having to do with the CGM. We are aware that some may indeed say that first of all we are “too extreme” and secondly our COP has looked into it, commissioned our seminary to examine and dissect it and that our official WELS position is that the CGM is “wanting,” to say the least. We would simply counter by contending that a defense of our theological heritage is hardly “extremism” and that in our honorable effort to be “balanced” in our critique we MAY have given a measure of credibility of the CGM by “damning it faintly.”
Two other items need to be touched on at this point in time:
1) Why have some felt the need to use “CG-speak” in a variety of communications one to the other? Is it wise, is it in the best interests of the WELS to use terms and phrases which unfortunately have been co-opted by the heterodox, Reformed, Evangelicals and suchlike?
To illustrate: It may be biblically correct (there’s nothing “wrong” with the phrase), to refer to Mary, the mother of our Lord, as “The Blessed Virgin Mother.” But brothers, who in the WELS speaks like that? The term, like “catholic,” has been co-opted by the Romanists! These are “good” words; a good title, but it simply is neither wise nor expedient to use them. So also with “CG-speak.” Uncommon sanctified sense would seem to indicate that we avoid, discontinue use of, or at the very least, be extremely judicious in the sparing use of co-opted terms and phrases.
2) Are we way off the mark when we express concern over our WELS brothers taking in seminars, workshops, etc. etc. sponsored by and featuring CG speakers? What do we hope to learn from teachers who are not of our theological persuasion? Verily, we do turn out mature men of discernment from our seminary. But it’s hard to erase the biblical picture of the Apostle Peter, who only wanted to warm himself by the fire, and see what he could see and perhaps learn about the fate of his Lord. Although there wasn’t a fire-blister apparent on Peter, who will argue that “he got burned!” Is it “absurd” to think that maybe; just maybe, that if we persist in warming ourselves by the fires of false teachers in an effort to rid ourselves of the cutesy but terribly unfair label of “The Frozen Chosen”, a whole host of good WELS-folk are going to be badly burned and blistered?
Perhaps this section can be concluded by the one final set of not-so-nice questions.
a) However inadvertently and with the purest of intentions, have some subconsciously fallen victim to “a number fixation?” “Why can’t we of the WELS, who have the truth, grow, go and share?” “There’s got to be something wrong somewhere! We’re not doing something right! We’re not
-9-
growing as we should or could!” It’s vexing to see the Elmbrooks and the Willow Creeks, almost in our backyards with their thousands per Sunday,- While we sit there with our couple hundred thousand WORLD WIDE!
b) Is it barely possible; Is it even worth a long second look; Is it unseemly even to ask the question;- that there has been a subtle shift from a “Theology of The Cross” (its proclamation) to a “Theology of Glory” (“results”)??? In the end, we feel strongly that the nose of the “CG camel” has stuck itself into our WELS tent and before that ungainly beast succeeds in making further inroads which may indeed destroy our heritage- habitat, we call for a theological whacking across the snout of the strange animal with a large 2x4 so that the CGM gets an unmistakable message: “CGM is neither welcomed, wanted or needed in the WELS!”
5. A TOP HEAVY ADMINISTRATION
Here we address the concern of not only the explosion of the number of people employed/called to “2929” but also what we sense as a shift in mind-set.
1. In 1985 when our synod reorganized itself organizationally, we added ca. 1 million dollars to our administrative costs.
2. We readily recognize that we must have a certain amount of administrative personnel to manage and coordinate a relatively complex entity called “the synod.”
3. Since the 1991 convention called for the formation for a CPR (Committee on Program Review), we will not address the concern of too many full time people producing too much of “a good things.”
4. Rather, we ask respectfully, are our administrative people resource people, people who serve the body of synod, or are they people who lead, formulate and set both policy and programs for the WELS?
In all candor, the reason for this
last question is the unmistakable feeling/perception that we of the WELS are now working from the top down, that decisions are made and announced from headquarters to the trench. For those who would vigorously decent (sic) from that assessment, we would submit in meekness the following: Olympia Village, Oconomowoc. A few years ago everyone and anyone who had anything at all to do with synodical administration and/or budget planning was summoned to Olympia Village where it was announced that from henceforth, “Decision Package Budgeting” was in. “Old things are passed away. Behold, all things are new!” No one asked the troops. The new marching orders were given, period. We had the option-presumably, to love it or hate it. It really made no difference. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHALL BE DONE! All descended from Olympia with instruction sheets and manuals firmly in hand.- 10 -
Oconomowoc was not an administrative and therefore an internal matter. It was a precursor of things to come and with ever greater frequency. One not so little illustration: If “someone” has “nominated” members of our parish, (identified those who have been thought of being blessed with golden heels), they will be solicited by a LHTC worker for a special gift-with or without (obviously, preferably with), the parish pastor’s blessing. This has caused perceptive lay people to ask, along with aggrieved pastors, “Has synod abandoned its traditional raising of funds THROUGH the congregations or does it now try to raise its funds through a “heavy hitter’s list” nationwide? This is merely another symptom of not running a synod by consensus but by decree. From the bottom up may indeed be not only idealistic, impossible and totally impractical, but could someone please be more conscious leading by the velvet cords of love rather than a pronouncement? This leads us to yet another nettlesome concern: “pastor bashing.” We hastily acknowledge that we are aware of the fact that this is NOT an all pervasive, common or every day occurrence. But even if it happens on occasion with some degree of regularity, it bothers and disturbs our community. Phrases such as: “If only the pastors out there would...,” “There are some pastoral pockets of resistance out there which...” -should be purged from all speech and hearts. It does not bode well for the church to have synodical administration and pastors fall into a confrontational posture. Let’s unite to fight sin and Satan and not each other!
6. A DENIGRATION OF THE HOLY MINISTRY
Here we speak of EFFECT, not cause. Somewhere, somehow, we recently have seen the rise of the use of the use of words, “ministry” and “ministries.” We are now seemingly awash in a variety of ministers ministering to segments and/or special interest groups of God’s people via a plethora of ministries. You name it; we’ve got it-“just like the Big Boys” of the church world. Who says that WELS isn’t a “full service church,” (and that phrase could use some catechtical examination), we minister to every age group, sex marital status, and special interest under the sun. And well we should! But haven’t we in the past? Have we failed so miserably in olden days so as to call for a total revamping and remaking of our WELS corps of pastors? Yes, a case could well be made for the use of the words minister, ministry and ministries. But as we plunge forward in our enthusiasm for the training of, placement and use of a variety of staff ministers, could we ask whatever happened to THE ministry? Is it just one of scores? Less than a generation ago if the answer to the question were given, “Well, I’m the minister of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church,” most, if not all, rational people
- 11 -
would know what I am and do! Want to try that today? Would not a more likely response to your humble question be, “Yes, that’s nice, but what do you do??” We feel that there is a swiftly approaching case of wholesale confusion “out there” while at the same time, there is,-albeit unconscious, a denigration of the Holy Ministry and its ministers. The ministry is being demeaned by the excessive use of the term to denote various service activities in the Church. Could we ask for a study of Scripture concerning these terms, titles and activities? Let’s review the Greek again and attempt to underscore what the Spirit meant to tell us when he used different words to describe differing aspects of serving in and service to the body of Christ?
7. A DISMANTLING OF OUR WORKER TRAINING SYSTEM
Indeed, we grant that some may vigorously take exception to the term, “dismantling.” But with all due deference and with a brief apology to the person who first coined the hoary phrase: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck-it ain’t a horse!” There were four. But then, the numbers weren’t right; “too much money for too few church worker candidates.” Tearfully, we closed Mobridge. And then there were three. “MLPS is too expensive! We’ve got too much plant for not enough students. A million plus extra is going into that school each year we run it. Let’s close it.” And soon there are to be two. But this triggers multiple moves. Move MLPS; merge it into NPS and bring forth one new prep school with a new name and say goodbye to an over 100 year old school. Move NWC to DMLC and merge it so that we have two schools, on terminal and one preparatory on the same campus.
Take a unique crown jewel out of our educational system, the only single purpose, single focus college in the U.S. if not the world and put the two student bodies on the same campus while building lasting friendships as future co-workers. Truly, we understand that closing a campus is not the same as getting out of the college training program for pastoral candidates altogether.
But please understand us when we say that it looks like a radical departure from the tried, true and traditional. It even looks like-forgive us- a piecemeal dismantling of our worker training system. Right here is the place where each of these concerns of our seem to be linked. One of the major reasons MLPS is getting its feet put to the fire is because is IS too much plant for too few students and it does cost a bundle. But, would the question have come
- 12 -
up if we would have had a constant set of significant percentage increases of the synodical portion of our congregations offering in the last ten years? Well, why isn’t the money rolling into “2929?” Could it possibly be because of a growing disaffection for the way things are or are not done; the way decisions roll down from the heights of Mayfair Road; the frustration pastors feel over not being able to implement every new program and project streaming forth out of headquarters; the inability of the pastors to deal with the guilt trips they’ve been given the feeling of pastors that we are ill trained and ill equipped to effectively serve Christ in a ministry that has passed us by?
Some closing thoughts about our worker training system and its current trauma.
1. In view of the wide variety of reaction to the special study committee’s report and recommendations to the districts, we feel that very few MAJOR decisions of long-range consequence be sought of the 1993 synod convention. There simply are too many unanswered questions and we are too far removed from a consensus agreement by an overwhelming majority to make moves which radically alter our workers training system for the next century.
2. We also feel that a substantial number of pastors, while recognizing that MLPS has performed well and admirably under some very difficult circumstances, may have come to also recognize that it is too large of a facility for too few students.
3. In light of the foregoing we would respectively ask that more study be given to alternatives such as proposed by at least one of our districts; sell the campus at “PDC”; move the school, so to speak, and merge it into ALA (thus fulfilling the fondest dreams of the founders of “The Academy”); but leave the colleges substantially untouched.
In conclusion, this isn’t the last word about “concerns,” it’s just the latest. We have tried to be moderate and evangelical in our judgments and statements. Where we’ve failed and some one of our brothers has been inadvertently and unintentionally wounded, please, please forgive. We’ve made every effort to be impersonal; it’s brothers talking shop; nothing more or less. Yes, obviously, there are a number of critical areas of concern and disagreement Therefore we earnestly pray that God will give us both direction and answers so that we can indeed walk forward together in Christ.
Celebrating His Pentecost Promise
Pastor Kurt F. Koeplin
Milwaukee, WI
August, 1992
***
GJ - WELS pastors were furious that I mailed this to Christian News to be reprinted. A later convention warned everyone that the only report on the convention allowed was theirs. A friend said to me, "That is because Corky's paper was sent to Christian News."
I said, "I did that."
"You did?"
It is a sin to tell the truth in WELS.