# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S353
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

352 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

are competing with ourselves for our members’ resources.
While we have allowed the colleges and seminaries to raise
money for themselves, we have not granted that same option to
other program boards of the Synod, particularly the Board for
Missions. To compound the matter, we find ourselves in the
position of granting “subsidy” to institutions which we “own
and operate” and therefore control. It seems, however, that
things are very much “out of control!” The Synod is mandated
by convention to increase subsidies to pay for salaries, while at
the same time the colleges are raising funds for themselves.
While most colleges conclude the year’s activity with a surplus,
the Synod has gone deeper and deeper into debt. For example,
fiscal year 1980 for the Synod ended with a $2,560,000 deficit
while collectively the seminaries and colleges ended their fiscal
year 1980 with a $970,000 surplus.

Under the above circumstances we find that less and less
support from the national level of the Synod is going to the
seminaries and colleges each year. While this is occurring,
junior colleges have been allowed to become four-year schools
under the premise that that is the only way they can survive.
However, survival of one college appears to be at the expense of
one or more of the others. To the extent that fewer and fewer
synodical dollars are available and more and more emphasis is
placed on local fund-raising, congregations and individuals
are becoming confused as to the role of the Synod with regard
to its ‘system of higher education.”

If the above is allowed to continue, by default the seminaries
and worker-training institutions of the Synod will become
almost totally independent. The very thing we did not want to
happen will in fact happen as the Synod contributes a smaller
and smaller percentage of the total operating needs of the
institutions.

In light of the report of the Task Force on restructuring the
Synod’s system of higher education issued in 1975, anumber of
things have yet to be seriously considered, but, in the judgment
of many, all have proven to be precisely on target. Had the
“subsidy” formulas been implemented immediately after the
1975 convention, the urgency of decision making would have
been accomplished in the 1977 or 1979 conventions of the
Synod. We must now decide whether we have a system of
colleges that the Synod wants to own and operate or whether
we will have chaos in the future, not by desire or design, but out
of urgency and survival.

The Synod should establish a multicampus university—
Concordia University—consisting of no more than six colleges
operated by one Board of Regents. The property of Concordia
University would be controlled by the Synod and extensive
scholarship support would be granted as student aid for all
appropriate students. In addition, the office of provost (pres-
ident) of each campus and certain administrative functions
should be funded directly by the Synod.

All other colleges of the Synod should become “affiliated”
institutions. Such colleges would lease the physical plant from
the Synod, and certain scholarship funds would be made
available. The president of these colleges should be elected
through the regular synodical procedures and the Board for
Higher Education of the President of the Synod should be
represented on the Board of Regents of each college. None of
the “affiliated” colleges are to be authorized to offer an official
synodical professional church-work program, but individuals
who desire to transfer to a Concordia University campus or to
the seminary would have the option, under a liberal arts
education, to take courses which would not be a disadvantage
in pursuing church-work vocations, particularly at the pastoral
ministry level. Some of the “affiliated” colleges can survive,
but they must have freedom to carve out a destiny different
from that of a “Synod campus.”

Seminary education in the Synod should be under the
control of a separate board for theological education, and all
necessary funding for the seminary operations should be
obtained as part of the synodical budget. All fund-raising
activities necessary to support seminary education should be
the responsibility of the Synod’s Department of Financial
Support.

The proposals for decision making with regard to the
contributions of congregations for the work of the Synod and
for a new way of doing higher education in our midst are not
made lightly or to get attention. They are sincere thoughts as to

how this complex organization can be a better steward of the
resources shared by our people. Please take them seriously, for
we are deceiving ourselves and our students if we continue to
pretend that all is well and no changes are necessary.

In spite of very troubling times with extremely high interest
rates and huge deficits, the work that the Synod elected me to
do has been most rewarding, particularly as it relates to the
activities of the Board of Trustees for Trust Funds, the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund, and the Foundation. Itisin
these three groups that a financial person has an opportunity
to utilize the skills that one would expect of him. The changes
in four years have been many, the volume of work has
increased several times, but we have been able to bring
together an excellent staff. We praise God for sending us so
many dedicated workers who desire to be part of the solution
for dealing with the many requirements imposed upon us.

These are exciting times. While the changes have been
many, the opportunities presented to the Synod are so bound-
less that one cannot help but be frustrated by our inability to
gather the resources to accomplish all that He lays before us. In
accomplishing what He would have us do, however, it is not
necessary that we continue all the ways of the past, but it is
necessary that we respond intelligently to the needs of the
people of our Synod to be in ministry. Each member must be
challenged to do his part for the work of the church at large,
and is entitled to relate to that which interests and excites him.
It is more complicated to function in such a way, but it is
imperative that once we have provided information and educa-
tion materials for the instruction of the saints, we accept their
decisions as to that part of the work of the church in which they
wish to be involved. If we are truly a “coming together of
churches,” and if each congregation is truly a “coming together
of individuals,” ways must be found to present opportunities
for mission and ministry so that the individual decision maker
can truly be a good steward. If we must reorganize to be in
mission effectively, then let’s do it!

Norman D. Sell, Treasurer

12-02

Report of Board of Stewardship

The Synod in its 1979 convention viewed the Great Com-
mission of our Lord and the world scene. Then the delegates
adopted challenges for the 1980s. These challenges—stagger-
ing in magnitude—are filled with opportunity!

Among the challenges adopted by the 1979 convention was
one directing the Stewardship Department to see that the
challenge of increasing the mission budget of the Synod by
100% plus inflation was reached during the decade. Our
proposal does not offer simple or easy solutions. Yet it does
offer answers and directions!

First the Challenges!

A. The 1980 Board of Directors special study on steward-
ship reflected that the surveyed persons expect—
1) the LCMS Stewardship Department to provide resources;
2) the District leaders to provide counsel, evaluation, and
promotion services;
3) the Districts and the local pastors to provide stewardship
leadership.

Thus the Stewardship Department must concentrate on
developing resources to provide service and training to the
Districts so that the local congregation and its members can be
adequately served.

B. The financial support of the challenges adopted for the
1980s requires hundreds of millions in ‘“‘new money.”

C. Mission growth is dependent on support of stewardship
cultivation and practice.

D. The Synod has begun a thoroughgoing, Bible-based
effort to continue the process of upgrading growth in giving
and funding the mission. One step was the Forward in
Remembrance effort. The next steps are suggested in the
Stewardship Department’s major proposals.

E. The traditional congregational structure for steward-