By Chad Hershberger
Throughout Camp Mount Luther’s first ten years, the camp enjoyed a big start and built upon new styles and traditions of church camping. Waiting lists caused the camp to expand, adding a new village and the Administration Center. Strong leadership propelled the camp into new programs. Despite offering a solid program, Lutheran churchgoers in Central Pennsylvania knew the synod operated three camps and they saw Mount Luther as the camp in the middle without a long tradition, history, and conference-style program like Nawakwa and without the rustic, “roughing it” attraction of Kirchenwald. As the 1970s got into full swing, this idea of the middle sibling without a clear, unique, individual identity would continue, especially as the synod proposed a new governance structure.
In Mount Luther’s infancy, childhood, and adolescence, the organization often struggled for its constituents to widely know exactly what Mount Luther embodied. Layers of governance compounded that problem as the camp most often was lumped with the other synod camps and treated as a whole rather than as an individual part of the whole. That would be solidified with a new camping corporation.
In November 1974, at their meeting, the Commission on Camping received a letter addressed to the president of the synod from Tressler-Lutheran Service Associates (T-LSA) containing preliminaries of a proposal for T-LSA to manage the synod’s camps. In January 1975, the Commission on Camping gave representatives from T-LSA the go ahead to prepare a formal proposal. They presented their proposal in April. It included a study of the enrollments and finances at all four camps and recommended future program direction for the three synod-owned camps. T-LSA recommended that a camping corporation be formed with all synod-owned camping assets transferred to the corporation and a covenant relationship established between the synod and corporation relative to selection of directors, financial considerations, reporting and reversion in case of dissolution. T-LSA also wanted to contract with the synod to provide a variety of services, including the employment of a managing director of camping.
On May 2, 1975, the Commission on Camping unanimously adopted a resolution to be presented to the synod’s Executive Board that the commission accept the Tressler Management Proposal as its basic guidelines for the future direction of camping. They requested the Executive Board to bring before the 1975 Convention of the Central Pennsylvania Synod the formation of a Central Pennsylvania Lutheran Camping Corporation. Two-thirds of its board members would be elected by the synod Executive Board upon recommendation by the Commission on Camping; the camping corporation itself would elect one-third of its members. The corporation board would report to the Commission on Camping and the synod in convention. In addition, they asked for the approval of the transfer of all synod-owned camps and the assets of the Lutheran Camping Foundation to the new corporation and approval to conduct a three-year fund-raising campaign for $1,000,000 on the territory of the synod. The commission also recommended that the new corporation enter negotiations with T-LSA to provide management services for the corporation. On May 5, 1975, the synod Executive Board moved that the Commission on Camping prepare a report of camping including philosophy, history, present situation, future plans in programming, and potential fiscal proposals for administration to the 1975 Convention for response at the 1976 Convention.
As plans progressed for the future, the Commission on Camping aimed to have the four synod camps become self-supporting. They knew, however, this would have to happen over time; so the commission proposed that the synod guarantee for each of the next five years an amount of operating financial support comparable to what was being given at the time. In a report by Robert P. Simon to the Synod Convention, the plans outlined for Mount Luther included a focus of residential and retreat camping for groups and individuals on a year-round basis. The ministry would be for all ages (both youth and families) with the primary emphasis on youth and their personal growth in faith and life. The program would be a traditional summer camping program, with confirmation camping, youth group camping, personal enrichment education, and family life enrichment.
Simon also outlined the projected facility needs. Those included an additional retreat center, meeting areas, recreational activities for individuals and groups, worship areas, assembly areas, and expanded food service. The camp’s acreage would also support family recreational vehicles in a separate area. Starting to focus Mount Luther’s ministry proved to be an important step in leading the camp to its own identity.
The Synod Convention gave approval to the formation of the Lutheran Camping Corporation of Central Pennsylvania and transfer of camp ownership to the corporation. The motion to give approval to call a full-time director of camping was sent to the Commission on Camping to report to the 1976 Convention. The motion stated the position would be filled by the president of synod and the Executive Board. At the September Executive Board meeting, it was moved that the Lutheran Camping Foundation be dissolved, and assets be transferred to the new camping corporation.
Even as these new developments transpired, the summer season continued as usual at Mount Luther. The summer resident season, however, was reduced by one week (the first week) due to possible food poisoning that was suspected but not confirmed.
Camping was indeed at a crossroads as of Summer 1975. At the direction of the Synod Convention in 1975, Director George Weiser did a study, as part of his master’s degree program, to obtain input from constituent groups within the synod, specifically pastors, to gauge how they perceived the outdoor ministry of the synod.
In the Weiser study, which involved surveying synod pastors and camping commission members, Sequanota ranked highest in occurrence and frequency of religious values related to developing a Christian sense of personal identity and self-worth; respondents perceived Kirchenwald as best meeting the values of helping a camper experience God’s presence; they perceived Nawakwa as best meeting the value of inclusion of the Bible in the camp program. Mount Luther did not rank best in any of these areas. Weiser’s study proved that Mount Luther did not possess a known identity proven by responses from pastors and camping commission members.
In another area of the study, the other three camps ranked comparably in a perception that campers matured because of their camp experience; Nawakwa did have a slightly higher score on the value of helping the camper gain new responsibilities through independence. Mount Luther scored low on the perception that campers responded with deepened personal commitment to God’s revelation of himself in Christ.
In the study, 75 percent of pastors and 92 percent of commission members agreed there should be a separate independent camping corporation. To that end, the study presented two types of management: a full-time managing director for all four camps hired by the corporation; or a business manager and secretary in addition to the director. Pastors whose districts (smaller, geographical areas of the synod) were in closest proximity to Nawakwa, and Mount Luther favored more full-time employees. One-half of those surveyed felt there should be a Managing Board for each camp with a full-time director for the corporation. When asked about administering the insurance needs of the camp, pastors closest to Mount Luther were most favorable of all respondents to having corporation administration instead of synod administration.
The study also included questions about facilities. When asked if swimming should continue in the pond or if a pool should be built, one-third of pastors were undecided on each option; three-quarters of the commission members wanted a pool. Pastors in districts around Mount Luther felt (58%) that a pool should be built. “One pastor who strongly agreed with continuing to use the pond stated: ‘As long as the pond is safe, it gives a different offering, unique for those who desire this kind of swimming.’” Forty-two percent of the pastors and 75 percent of the commission members felt Mount Luther needed more meeting space. Slightly more than a third of pastors felt Mount Luther should have a new or modified dining facility. Sixty percent of pastors and all commission members felt funds needed to be raised for capital improvements. This perception undoubtedly led to the GO Capital Campaign that the Lutheran Camping Corporation held in the late 70s. All but one commission member and two-thirds of pastors believed that a camp ambassador program should be developed.
The study gave pastors the chance to give open feedback. One commented on the value of the stress trail at Mount Luther. Several comments further showed the lack of an identity for Mount Luther as pastors commented that they sensed a lack of religion in the Mount Luther camping experience and that it was all “fun and games.”
It was a crucial moment in Mount Luther’s history. As Weiser wrote in his study, “The camping program truly is at a crossroads, does represent a sizeable investment, is a valuable nature resource in land and people, and is deteriorating from a physical plant and grounds standpoint because finances are not available to adequately maintain or update them.”
What would happen next would hope to change that. The formation of the Lutheran Camping Corporation of Central Pennsylvania would ignite renewal in all three camps under its umbrella, especially as the corporation embarked on a capital campaign in its early years.