# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1992_S58
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

58 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

limitations. Accordingly, I appointed a special Task Force
on Conflict Resolution. A wide range of competent indi-
viduals was available for appointment to this task force,
including members of the Synod with professional expe-
rience in industrial, legal, academic, and professional stud-
ies in this area. However, because of the immediate and
pressing need for studies dealing with our Bylaws and how
they have worked in practice, I appointed pastors and lay-
men to serve on the task force who had experience on the
Commission on Appeals, Commission on Adjudication,
Commission on Constitutional Matters, and the Council of
Presidents. They were not chosen to be official represen-
tatives or spokesmen of those groups, nor to addresa spe-
cific cases or rulings, but rather because they were
experienced participants in the synodical processes gov-
erned by the Bylaws of the Synod. Accordingly, the criti-
cism of this appointment process made by the commission
on Appeals, and reported by that Commission to this con-
vention, is not only lacking in understanding, but unwar-
ranted and unfair. The task force was given the specific
mandate to consider various methods of conflict resolution
and to recommend any such methods as are consistent with
biblical models and appropriate use at the congregational,
District, institutional, and national levels of the Synod.
The task force was further asked to review Chapter VIII
of the current Handbook and to recommend any changes
it deemed appropriate. In pursuing this effort, the task
force was asked to study methods of conflict resolution that
have been introduced in the civil and business areas of our
society, but to focus primarily on biblical models.

Other than making the appointment of the task force
and outlining its initial task, I have not been directly in-
volved in shaping its proposals. Nevertheless, I strongly
endorse them and recommend their adoption by this
convention.

Mission Blueprint for the Nineties

As the abridged report included in this Workbook itself
makes very clear, the Mission Blueprint for the Nineties
is one of the most exciting and important studies of the
triennium. It represents thousands of hours of work and
study and includes the input of literally hundreds of people
who have been involved in the mission of the church. I
strongly encourage the Synod to express its appreciation
for this report, not only by endorsing its major proposals,
but especially by encouraging and enabling its study and
implementation throughout the Synod.

Church-Growth Studies

For several years, the church-growth movement has re-
ceived widespread study and attention by national and
District synodical officials. Criticisms and ‘concerns about
some of the emphases of this movement have also been
voiced among us. In 1988, our Commission on Theology
and Church Relations produced an excellent biblical and
practical analysis of both the strengths and weaknesses of
emphases often associated with the movement. During the
past triennium additional studies and conversations were
initiated between representatives of our seminaries and
mission executives. The study resulted in another excellent
document that received attention and distribution during
the triennium, and remains available from our Standing

Committee on Pastoral Ministry. Those who continue to
have questions and concerns about the theology of the
church-growth movement are urged to give special atten-
tion to these two excellent documents. In addition to pro-
viding practical helps to the pastors and leaders of our
Synod as we encourage one another to grow by reaching
out with the Gospel, these documents should help to lay
to rest the continued criticism heard in parts of the Synod _
and beyond that the Synod has uncritically adopted or been
negatively influenced by major tenets of the church-growth
movement. :
Integrative Efforts

Our Synod is a community made up of more than 60
individual corporations. Our 35 Districts not only have con-
siderable autonomy and responsibility, but in recent years
they have expanded the range of ministry they carry out
on behalf of our congregations. Many of our strongest syn-
odical components (i.c., LCEF, Foundation, Worker Bene-
fit Plans, CHI, and CPH) are separately incorporated,
organized, and governed as “other synodical entities.” Both
District and national officers and staffs serve more than
6,000 self-governing congregations. Meanwhile, the society
in which we live is increasingly characterized by fragmen-
tation and the breakdown of traditional social groups, in-
cluding the family, neighborhood, and civic community.
Although we live together side by side, we often do so with-
out much involvement and interaction with others. Thia
individualistic, free-choice spirit is also reflected in the
giving patterns of American people, including members of
our synodical congregations, often resulting in the break- .
down of the traditional unified budget, as individual and
congregational donors frequently divide their gifts among
a dozen or more church and charitable organizations. This
same spirit is a factor in the declining loyalties of American
Christians to their own denominations, as well as the de-
velopment of eclectic, “pick and choose” approaches to one’s
personal faith and theology.

In the midst of such developments, it becomes increas-
ingly important for the leadership of the Synod at all levels
to commit itself to the coordination and integration of the
life and work of the entire Synod and all its members. This
is not some misguided call to “centralization,” nor even an
issue of “control” or “authority,” but rather a plea that we
all work together to maintain and strengthen our solidarity
and wholeness. A Synod in which each congregation, Dis-
trict, board, commission, or “other entity” goes its own way
will not aid in our task of remaining faithful to our confes-
sional heritage, nor in the maximum utilization of our re-
sources for the mission of the church. I have therefore
encouraged colleagues in the administration of the Synod
to become more and more intentional about doing those
things that will promote our unity and solidarity of faith,
confession, and mission. Although there are obvious or-
ganizational implications of this principle, the most im-
portant factor in developing greater solidarity and
wholeness as a Synod is our common faith and confession.
The leadership of the Synod, including this convention,
must work closely together to foster those studies, activi-
ties, events, and relationships that will provide and en-
courage our confessional solidarity and integrity and find
expression in a more unified approach to meeting the many