# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S74
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

74

12.

13.

14.

15.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

be kept at home and the percent to be shared for
District and national work? Should the convention
provide for sharing covenants between District and
national operations? Should these covenants ,pro-
vide that no District can reduce the percentage
shared with the national Synod without approval of
a Planning Council or some other group? If not,
what alternatives should be considered?

Should the Synod adopt the philosophy of funding
District and national operations, including colleges,
seminaries, and world missions, from Sunday morn-
ing offerings, but utilizing periodic special appeals
for capital and other special purposes, including the
expansion and continuing support of new mission
starts?

Should the Synod support the proposal for another
major appeal in order to continue the momentum of
Forward in Remembrance?

Are there better ways to fund the Synod’s system of
higher education? Should BPES administration,
seminaries, and colleges be funded from three
separate budget allocations? Should special capital
and operating appeals of colleges and seminaries be
encouraged or discouraged?

What did we learn from FIR that can assist us in
doing the Lord’s work during the next critical
years?

Specific Suggestions and Recommendations

1.

Give strong encouragement to an intensive steward-
ship effort throughout the Synod.

2. Support the formation of a new stewardship council.
3.

Support a major appeal for mission and ministry
efforts as early as 1986.

. Develop an early means to eliminate the synodical

debt without cutting programs or staff, and without
redirecting FIR receipts.

Support a new District/National Planning Council
to coordinate and prioritize the prudent use of all
synodical resources.

. Developimproved ways for congregations to become

better informed of national and District programs
and provide opportunities for congregations to
support them more adequately.

Call a Circuit Counselors Conference (perhaps via
teleconferencing) for early 1984 to deal with steward-
ship education and other important matters (per-
haps in conjunction with Committees I, II, and III).
Encourage the synodical administration to utilize
regional groupings of District leaders to achieve
greater coordination of staff personnel and other
services.

V. Structure and Constitution

Related Planning Assumptions from ECC Report (page
169)

10.

16.

The Synod will have to rethink its philosophy of
higher education and do some restructuring of its
higher education system.

Strong Districts are good for the Synod.

17.
18.

Changes will take place in sharing resources.

District and synodical structures will rieed to be
changed to make maximum use of available
resources. ; :

Questions/Comments for Consideration and Reflection

1.

10.

11.

Many good things are happening because of recent ;

modifications in our structure. National officers
and staff are planning, coordinating, and working
together in a better way. But a number of refine-
ments would help to clarify and strengthen the
structure.

The Commission on Structure has offered a process
of testing reactions to certain potential changes by
proposing action at a future convention. Is this
helpful? Or does it cause unnecessary delays? (For

example, having both a Church Council to act for.

the convention between conventions, while at the
same time retaining a Board of Directors to handle
legal, property, and fiduciary matters.)

What can be done at this convention, and what :
should be referred to the Commission on Structure :

for recommendation to the 1986 convention?

. Howcan we clarify the identity of the Synod andits ‘

various national and District components? Are the
functions of national and District conventions

officers, boards, and staffs sufficiently clear to »

avoid duplication?
Would the proposed Planning Council help achieve

coordination of District and national programs? °

How much responsibility should it have for budgets?
Are strong Districts good for the Synod? Are strong
national programs? If so, in which areas?

How should the Synod view the trend toward
regionalization? Should Districts share staffs?
Should national staff be deployed to regions or
clusters of Districts?

. Should the number and size of Districts be studied

with recommendations made to the next conven-
tion? What criteria are important in such considera-
tions?

. Some have suggsted that the principal staff people:

in such areas as Missions, Professional Education,’
Parish Services, and Administration, elected by.
boards with the approval of the President, be given:
titles of Vice-President (for their area) and officiall
represent the President in various capacities, wit!
out right of succession. (Similar to what colleg
seminaries, CPH, Foundation, and Church Exte :
sion have already done.) What do you think of thats
suggestion?

Should the Board for Professional Education:
Services be separated into two boards—one fo
colleges and one for seminaries? Should the sem!
naries operate under a single Board of Regents
Should separate budget allocations be made for th
system of colleges and for the seminaries? Or ca
the positive features of such proposals be achievé
more adequately within the present structure? ;
Would the proposed Council on Stewardship assif)