August 07th, 2007 |
05:01 pm |
Posted in
General
|
No Comments
My husband and I are making payments towards debt (not including mortgage) that total a third of our income. Although we budget for food, entertainment, gas, etc. we still find ourselves living paycheck to paycheck and our savings dwindled to almost nothing with each additional medical bill, even less since our bank charges us monthly for having such a low balance. It’s really hard to live this way. We hardly go out anymore because gas is so expensive and dining out is quite spendy. Plus there are so many things we need. So I’ve decided we should go further in debt and get another credit card. Maybe two. That way we can have everything we need and do all the things we want to do, and we’ll just worry about where the money will come from later. I suppose we could cut things out of our budget, but we’ll worry about that later–no need to make those decisions now. Even though we are fed and clothed we can eat better and have newer, better clothes and worry about where the money will come from later.
Yes, that’s what we’ll do. No? That sounds ludicrous to you? Bad stewardship, perhaps? The delegates’ decision to disregard the recommendation of the Synodical Conference and keep MLS open have done just that. They’ve elected to keep MLS open in hopes the money will come in (again) and haven’t considered a very basic question: What is the best stewardship of our resources?
To go further in debt should NOT be an option at this point–or at any point, really. Yes, we can have synod-wide fund drives and shift the responsibility of the money issue from the indebted synod to God by saying “God will provide–this is a ministry, after all,” but the fact of the matter is that God HAS provided–what have we done with it?
My husband and I can go further into debt and claim “God will provide” or rely on more students or a job reclassification, but that’s not good stewardship of our resources now. If the delegates want to keep MLS open, then why didn’t they go further and investigate where the money would come from? Why not make suggestions to alter the proposed budget? From the outside looking in, this whole decision seems like an emotional one, not a practical one. If the ALHSs did not offer a curriculum similar to LPS or MLS, I might think differently about keeping MLS open, but the fact is they do. My brothers and I all went through an ALHS. I was in a teacher track, at the time getting ready to go to (D)MLC. My younger brother took four years of Latin and 2 of German (as well as other classes) in preparation to go to MLC. My older brother, who was in neither, was the first graduate of MLC’s Staff Ministry program. Both our parents were synodical school graduates–Dad from Northwestern Prep, Mom from MLS. They knew I wanted to be a teacher and my brother a pastor, but never once did I hear them mention maybe I should consider MLS or MLPS (still open at the time) for a better, more thorough ministerial education. I mentioned it, even went to visit the campus, but it didn’t offer anything the two ALHSs I attended didn’t offer. And closing MLS doesn’t limit that opportunity–we do still have Luther Prep, which isn’t near full capacity. Not to mention the other 22 ALHSs which have really seemed to have gotten short-changed in this whole decision.
I read a comment that made the point that the Great Commission is to “Go and make disciples” not “Go and make pastors and teachers”. I personally would rather see our mission field expand once again and if closing MLS demonstrates better stewardship of the resources we already have, I can’t understand why this decision was made. Have we completely lost sight of why we’re on earth to begin with?