MASadmin – Page 129 – Pocket Sized Pastor*

ELCA’s budget increases for 2012

Interesting. It seems that, at the end of last year, the ELCA churchwide organization had a surplus of $4 million. In response to that, the Churchwide Council increased the 2012 budget for operations by $1.4 million (to $65,498,135) and increased the ELCA World Hunger budget by $1.3 million (to $19,900,000). Where that extra money is going to exactly, I have no idea.

As Spirit of a Liberal points out, it might appear that the austerity measures due to the 2009 churchwide sexuality decision is starting to work its way out (but I doubt sexuality was the issue entirely – the economy is a bigger chunk of that). In Nov. 2009, the ELCA cut its 2010 budget by $7.7 million to $69,022,800 (World Hunger was left at $18.7 milion). The original budget for 2010 was approved in August 2009 was $76.69 million. A year ago (April 10, 2011), the original plan for the 2012 budget was only $61.8 million. So the new change in the budget (an increase to $65 million) and almost $20 million for World Hunger is a nice change. It’s possible a corner has turned.

Of course, the ELCA’s budget is way below the proposed budget in 2008 and 2009 of $81 million. Our support for ELCA World Hunger has remained rather high, considering, but $65 million isn’t $81 million. And, if the numbers I found were right, we’ve only dropped about 400 congregations since 2008 (though I can’t find 2011/2012 statistics). Those churches (and their synods) were not giving $15 million to churchwide support. Thus, funding overall, is down (obviously). But I do like that our work for ELCA World Hunger is still rather high. It could have been dropped but it wasn’t. I value that commitment.

Of course, where that $65 million is going, and how that’s moving along, if I studied it, I’d probably have some opinions about where I think it should be going. But I’ll solve that problem once this semester is over.

Baby Names and future football nicknames

I get asked a lot whether my wife and I have a name for the kid yet. Let me just come out and say that we’re keeping it under wraps. I usually answer the question with “we don’t have a name yet; we have a list; we’re gonna wait till we meet the guy.” And this is all true. We have a spreadsheet – a google doc that we share and update every once in awhile. And we have a color code system for names that we like and names that we don’t (though my suggestions, rightly, are usually shot down). So, the world will know the name once the kid is born. Because, I feel, that’s when we’ll know too.

But when it comes to the actual name, I find myself thinking ahead. I don’t really pay attention to the nicknames that kids will give him because, well, kids are creative and they’ll come up with something. I tend to find myself, mostly, thinking about future options for his career in professional sports. What are fans going to call him? What are his teammates going to say? Are they going to give him an action name or a riff on his given name? If I give him a boring name, will he have no chance at a cool nickname? Can his name, or nickname, be put in an acronym for NBC, CBS, or ESPN? These are important questions! IMPORTANT! We’ve gotta be prepared for all future possibilities! And even if he ended up on Wall Street or with a Bishop hat or working in retail, he’s going to need a nickname. He can’t be like me and rely on the names of rappers from the late 80s/early 90s to help him out. He’s gotta have options. OPTIONS!

This is probably why I shouldn’t be allowed to name children.

Won’t anyone think of the women wearing gloves?

This might be, possibly, my favorite reason yet on why we should get rid of the common cup.

From the Annals of Hygiene, Volume 7, 1892. I’m starting to notice that the main agitators of the individual cup movement were based, initially, in Ohio, Philadelphia, and Brooklyn. However, it wasn’t until churches in Rochester got into the business (and the Gray Lady reported on it), that things got out of hand. Now if only I had a chance to take a look at Synod minutes from Ohio….

Turf Wars

Yesterday, I convinced two of my classmates to attend my Lutheran field site on Sunday morning. I recently discovered that my advisor (and professor of two of my classes) was going to lead the adult education hour between services. Her plan was to cover the Book of Acts. That peaked my interest because I have a group project for her class covering that very book! I convinced my group to gather together at the adult education hour with the idea of freaking her out a little. She laughed when I told her why we were there (and also informed us that the cheat sheet she handed out to us cannot be in our assignment). All in all, it was a success and I enjoyed seeing her handle the conversation. I’m usually involved with Sunday School and my time with adult education is reduced to home bible study groups and the like. In my experience, the more exposure to inquisitive adults that I get, the better. Around twenty five people showed up for the class and the conversation rarely reached into the book of Acts. Many of the questions asked were about the very structure of the bible itself – who wrote what, how was it organized, what are all the other gospels out there, if Luke and Acts are one work, why is the Gospel of John between them, etc. All were good questions and seemed to signal a hunger that I noticed after my last sermon at my field site. The congregation, in many ways, is hungry for this kind of information which is why many people enjoyed the historical context I provided. They want to know, they want to understand, and they don’t seem to be getting enough of that. I’ll need to keep that in mind as I move forward with my time there.

Besides our little fun with our professor, what I really enjoyed was what happened during our the service. A travel snafu left the assisting minister role unfilled so, five minutes before the start of the show, I robed up and prepared. I ran through the service, did my duty, sung the psalm, read the prayers, and brought a certain style and pizzaz to the whole she-bang by wearing pink socks under my alb. But what I really enjoyed was when I distributed the wine during communion. I really got a kick out of telling my classmates, classmates that I had served through their tradition (The Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation) that this is “The Blood of Christ, shed for YOU.” They were on my turf and they had to suffer my tradition. Muhahahaha. Take that Episcopalians! When it comes to my rebellions against seminary, I take all the small victories that I can.

Anti-vaccinations, 1899 style

You know, as much as everything changes, everything pretty much stays the same. In the quote below, from the Lutheran Quarterly (April 1899) in an article defending the use of the individual communion cup.

On the subject of vaccination there is also a great difference of opinion. The fearful ravages of small-pox in the past, and the wonderful efficacy of vaccination in mitigating or preventing this dreadful disease, is a matter of history and is well attested, and yet there is to-day a wonderfully vigorous Anti-vaccination Society in England, which is doing all it can through literature and speech, to destroy public confidence in this benign measure. Their argument is, that the infectious character of small-pox has been unduly magnified and that modern medical methods for the treatment of this disease, need no such an ally as vaccination. These two instances are sufficient to prove that it is utter folly to declare the charge of infection from the common cup, as unproved, until there shall exist a unanimity of opinion, both among the laity and among physicians, as to the actual transference of disease germs, in the present custom. If agreement cannot be reached when positive proof is on record and abundantly attested, it will surely never occur, when in the very nature of the cause, indubitable evidence cannot be had.

The author was complaining about an anti-vaccination movement in 1899? Really? Wow, its been 113 years and it feels like nothing has changed. Except for that whole lack-of-small-pox thing.