# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S363 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 362 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION today’s complex world of high technology was aptly demon- strated by the recent energy blackouts in New York and lower New England, and the OPEC oil embargo of the winter of 1973—74. The paradox of modern society is that the very technology that provides the cornucopia of freedoms— unlimited choice in consumption options, freedom of mobility, freedom from abject poverty—chains us together in a common dependence upon fragile strands of wire, hose, and pipe. The church is a partner in this interdependent, complex societal system. Like the larger society, the inexorable trend for the church is, paradoxically, in the twin directions of more “freedom” and less independence. If that phrase strikes a familiar chord, that’s because it goes to the heart of the New Testament messages. The redemptive act of Jesus Christ “frees’’ us from the condemnation of the Law, but “‘constrains” us to love, disciple, and serve others. In terms of long-range planning, what are some implica- tions? The choices each of us make in terms of funding, staffing, and doing the mission impacts on everyone else’s funding, staffing, and doing. Under such circumstances, “not to plan” is to accept someone else’s plan, while ‘‘planning independently” is to maximize certain aspects of the system to the detriment of one or more other aspects, eventually leading to significant “disfunction” of the whole. What we must attempt within the church is to strengthen the function of each part of the system in relation to every other function. Toillustrate, consider the human body and think of the New Testament analogy for the church. Each organ, cell, and tissue is extremely sensitive to its internal and external environment. Whenever environmental conditions exceed a relatively narrow band of tolerances, the entire system reacts with incredible speed in an attempt to bring the affected organ, limb, etc., back to its optimum functional relationship with the whole. Unfortunately, the institutional church does not always act in as unified a manner as the body. This is true for a number of reasons. First, the human body is a system by design, which God made and executed Himself. While God indeed established His church, the implementation and administration of church bodies have been based on human decisions. They have become complex as relatively ad hoc responses to the present need. Secondly, the way we usually attempt to understand something is to “take it apart” and reduce it to irreducible wholes. Such a theoretical framework dictates that one “com- partmentalize” experience or “departmentalize” functions. This virtually guarantees that “parts” will be known in detail, but no one ever sees the whole. “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” Then each addition, change, or deletion is considered primarily on the basis of a relatively narrow view of its short- term effects. Finally, partly due to its size, any complex organization or institution resists change, especially rapid change. Under relatively stable environmental conditions such slow-reacting, disjointed organizations could probably survive, even grow, over the long term. But the environment—internal and external—is not stable. In fact, the pace of change has increased geometrically in recent decades. Under such environmental conditions anticipating the next move is as much of a challenge as managing it. The era when any institution, including the church, could “muddle through” has passed. Aware of the challenge, we must now remind each other that God has given the Synod the resources to meet the challenge. He has promised us His Holy Spirit, toempower and sanctify. We have the Good News of forgiveness for which there is an ever-present need. We have a dedicated, skilled leadership throughout the church. We have a vast, educated, affluent skilled, largely untapped laity. We have a higher education system which is the envy of many other church bodies. Finally, and perhaps most important, we are not like every other bureaucreacy, organization, or group. What ties us together as the body of Christis not merely acommon purpose, an ethnic or racial identity, or socioeconomic class, but the living, loving Jesus Christ Himself. Because of His life-giving act of reconcil- iation, sealed by His resurrection, we live in Him and with one another as brothers and sisters. Because of that unity, we also tend to disagree more on methodology than on the goals for which we strive. In our struggle to deal with organizational matters—how boards, Synod, Districts, colleges and seminaries, and congregations should work together—we tend to obscure the very personal nature of our redemption, and the fact that even our beloved Synod and its agencies are only tools, fashioned under human rationale, to fulfill a God-given mission. What the institutional church strives to dois to make itself, under God’s guidance, the best and most appropriate tool it possibly can be. What we must guard against is the confusion of the design and function of the tool with the mission itself. If one attempts to use a screwdriver when the task requires a pliers, two things may happen: (1) the task will not be accomplished, and (2) the attempt may result in self-inflicted injury. The Executive Planning Group was charged with setting out long-range objectives designed, after considerable prayer, study, and reflection, to guide us along the fulfillment of our ultimate mission: that people of all ages everywhere be joined by faith in Christ as disciples of our Lord. IV. Keeping the Master Plan Current Planning is not a bound document which an organization slavishly follows or patently ignores. It is rather a process, attitude, or mind-set. It examines where an organization is, how it got there, and how it will get to a particular point (goal) at some preselected time in the future. Some plans are quite cetailed, following precise, complex statistical procedures. Others are almost vague in the sense that they lack mathematical precision. They are designed to make decision makers think in broad conceptual terms. Most plans are “hybrids” in that short-term (1~3 years) objectives are relatively specific, while the longer-term (5 to 10 or more years) goals are benchmarks against which to measure progress and guide the development of the short-term objectives. Another factor which largely determines the degree of precision in a given plan is the subject of the planning. In general, manufacturing, product-based planning can be extremely precise—down to the number of units produced per day over a specified time frame. The less product-oriented the plan, the less precision one can expect in the plan itself andin the accuracy of the long-term outcomes or targets. The most perilous of projections today are those relating to future fertility. The total number of annual births and the average annual rate at which all women give birth are simply aggregations of literally millions of individual decisions, determined by personal and societal attitudes, economic condi- tions, and other factors which are not projectable for any considerable time frame with very great precision. Since the church in North America is primarily a voluntary organiza- tion, changes in membership affiliation, the degree of involve- ment, including personal financial contributions, and commit- ment to the church’s purpose are matters of individual, personal decision making. Some would say that because we must rely on less precise planning than, say, the manufacturer of church pews, we really shouldn’t bother. However, it is precisely because we lack a precise view of the future and are caught up in the rapid pace of change that planning is even more necessary than it was in the past. Such conditions also make the continuous planning process mandatory. Rather than obviate the need for planning, rapid change requires more frequent review and revision, and less restrictive or prescriptive planning. For this reason the EPG recommends to the Synod the following process for annual review and adaptation of the proposed master plan. The process is built on these assumptions: 1. The Synod, its Districts, and congregations will engage in an ongoing planning process administered by a coordinat- ing and planning group, consisting of the Synod’s Board of Directors, Council of Presidents, and Council of Adminis- trators. 2. Facilitating the work of the above-named group will bea Planning/Coordinating Committee consisting of three District Presidents, three executives from the Synod’s major boards represented on the Synod’s Council of Administrators, three Board of Directors members, and the Synod’s President. (Total: 10 members)