# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S17
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MISSIONS

of a decline. Not only is the Lord providing men and women to
meet the expanding pastoral and teaching needs of our church
in this country, but He is also most certainly providing men
and women who have the talents and abilities and dedication
to meet the special cross-cultural demands for reaching the
hidden peoples around the world.

Second, the challenge of a 100 percent increase in the
mission budget by 1990. Obviously, if all the challenges are
realistic, and we believe they are, then not only will there need
to be an increase in people resources but monetary resources.
As mentioned above, the Lord is taking care of supplying the
people resources. How are His people in the LCMS doing in
supplying the monetary resources needed to meet program and
people requests in existing partner churches/mission fields
and at the same time to walk through new doors the Lord is
opening for us?

Elsewhere in this report, under the budget section, there are
detailed graphs and figures. These are for study by the
convention delegates and the membership of the LCMS. The
board has been chafing under the painful strictures portrayed
in those graphs.

In a day when the purchasing power of the dollaris steadily
declining and inflation is running rampant in most countries
of the world where we are working, to go from $9.7 million in
1977 to $10.8 in 1981 and say that we are going to move forward
in mission for the Lord is a blatant contradiction. We have
faith and do believe that the Lord will move the hearts of His
people in the LCMS to share generously of the resources with
which He has blessed them. But in the meantime, are we to shut
doors He has opened? Are we to continue to say “wait” to
couples He has moved to volunteer for current overseas needs?

The Board for Missions wants to go on record that it in no
way faults the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors can
only divide the resources shared by the membership of the
LCMS among all the programs of the Synod. The Board of
Directors also must live under a convention mandate to bring
in a balanced budget to the 1981 convention. It cannot deficit-
spend, no matter how urgent the request.

However, that does not solve our dilemma. The board is
willing to move out in faith and has done so. Missionaries
whose support was not in the budget were sent to Guadalajara
and Panama. Some small internal shifting within the budget
plus unexpected over-and-above gifts made it possible. But this
“happenstance approach” cannot continue, especially if we
are serious about sending 600 missionaries out into the world
by 1990. At today’s cost, in 1990 we will need $24 million in
missionary support alone! That is a 240 percent increase in the
mission budget! And that only for missionary support! What
about the cost of the mission work they do?

The board is convinced there is a way it can be done. After
prayerfully considering all the factors, analyzing the requests
and desires of LCMS members, taking governmental regula-
tions into account, receiving positive affirmations from an
embryonic presentation of the plan to District mission exec-
utives and to missionaries in Ghana, Togo, and Nigeria, and
carefully studying the impact upon the general program of the
Synod and its own program, the Board for Missions is ready to
present to the membership of the Synod ‘the £9 Towing plan for
implementation. But let’s proceed in an orderly way.

The Lord has richly blessed the membership of the LCMS
with monetary resources. Even though the final results of the
Forward in Remembrance drive are not in at this writing, the
Advanced Gifts phase and the Forward phase have clearly
demonstrated the above fact. That our people are richly blessed
monetarily and are willing to share generously with the Lord
for His work with eagerness and excitement is beyond dispute.

While supportive of the Synod and its programs, the
membership of the LCMS desires more. They have indicated in
many ways a desire to be personally involved in mission and
missionary support. The evidence to support this is clear.
Witness the number of Districts which in recent years have
been adopting fields or projects over-and-above their share to
Synod. Requests continually come to the mission staff for
projects on mission fields that can be supported directly. “Give
us the name of a missionary and tell us how we can support
him.” “Our neighbors belong to a church which fully supports
not one but ten missionaries. Why can’t we do the same?”

We can, but a few more facts have to be understood. Under

_removed from the national mission budget.

_ : 4%.

Wee foe Fo pp WT
our present program, missionary support is a budget item in
the missions budget. According to governmental regulations,
since the missionary’s support is fully covered by the national
budget, contributions from individuals or congregations direct-
ly to that missionary are not tax-deductible. Missionaries
supported by “your neighbor’s church” are not covered by a
national budget, but are fully salaried by that congregation.

The membership of the LCMS has by Handbook regulations
committed to the Board for Missions the planning, strategy,
direction, and program for its mission outreach at home and
abroad. There appears to be no desire for this to be altered in
any way. Individual congregations recognize they are not
equipped for the magnitude of the task of managing the
direction and program of the LCMS mission thrust.

And now for the plan. First, all support of missionaries is
is refers only
to salary and support benefits—cost of airfare to and from the
field, salary and benefits while on the field and at home on
furlough, education allowances for children, etc.—NOT
PROGRAM OR HOUSING. The exact salary and support
benefits for each missionary will be prepared in detail with full
explanation. At this point the missionary and his family are
totally and legally without support, and governmental regula-
tions are complied with fully.

Second, draw up a contract between the missionary, his
supporting congregation or congregations, and the Synod. In
the contract a number of items would be clearly enunciated:

1. The congregation agreeing to furnish all or a part of its
missionary family’s support is already remitting a fair
share of its budget to the support of the District and the
Synod, and agrees to continue that level of support. The
congregation clearly understands, therefore, that its
agreed-upon support for the missionary 1S over-and-
_aboye this annual support forthe Nistrict and the Synod.
Otherwise there would be no support for District and
synodical programs or for the program of the field or
church in which the missionary is to be working.

2. The congregation accepts all or a part of the support
package by voters’ resolution. It agrees to abide by the
salary and support structure set for all missionaries by
the Board for Missions.

3. The congregation clearly understands that if it cannot
honor the agreed-upon amount of support, the missionary
family does not get paid. There can be no general backup
guarantee out of the national mission budget.

4. The agreed-upon amount will be forwarded monthly to
the Board for Missions of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod for transmittal in full to the missionary.
No administrative costs will be taken out.

5. The congregation agrees to support the missionary and
his family for at least the duration of one tour of overseas
duty.

6. The Board for Missions, under the Bylaws of the Synod,
has the responsibility for recruiting, interviewing, call-
ing, and sending the missionary. The board and the
partner churches’ mission field have the joint responsibil-
ity for supervising, directing, and setting the program of
the missionary while on the field.

The actual mechanics have yet to be worked out, but it is
hoped, for example, that the missionary’s home congregation,
or the one desiring a particular missionary, will assume a
portion of the support and will seek from other congregations
in the circuit or immediate geographic area the remainder of
the support. Perhaps an entire circuit might assume the over-
and-above responsibility for support of a missionary family.
Having the supporting congregations for each missionary
relatively close to each other will not only strengthen the
relationship between congregations but make it easier for the
missionary to report on his supporting families during his tour
of duty and particularly while on furlough.

The Board for Missions believes that this plan incorporates
the best of the ‘‘faith mission” approach while retaining the
mission program of the LCMS within the structure of equity
and good order. The need for personalization and governmental
regulations are satisfied. The program can be managed by the
new Special Gifts Department of Finances and Stewardship
presently being proposed and organized by Task Force II.
Furthermore, the Board for Missions does not become a