# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1992_S126 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 126 ‘ RESOLUTIONS 3. The-electronic media outreach portion of the Board for Communication Services budget is reclassified to Mis- sion and Outreach. The primary purpose is outreach to the unchurched, and the programs are similar to worldwide media outreach programs, which have been included in the Board for Missions Services budget. 4. The audit costs for colleges, universities, and semi- naries will now be reported under the category of preparing church workers. Placement costs will also be reported in this category. 5, Ministerial growth and support efforts applicable to full-time church workers will now be reported under the category of preparing church workers. These efforts are similar to and are coordinated with the continuing edu- cation programs offered by the Synod’s colleges, univers- ities, and seminaries. Future budgets.With the exception of some minor re- finements, the Board of Directors and the floor committee believe that the 1992/93 budget accomplishes the “right sizing” of the Synod’s programs and staffs for the 1990s and perhaps beyond. Subject to no further declines in in- come from Districts, the board in future years intends to apply anticipated reductions in development and planned giving costs, supplemental retirement benefits to Veterans of the Cross, and interest and debt service, equally to Mis- sions and Outreach and to Preparing Church Workers, un- til each receives 37% percent of the unrestricted dollars. To Integrate and Expand Synod’s Method for Mission and Ministry Planning and Implementation RESOLUTION 4-024 Overtures 4-01, 4-26-27 (CW, pp. 217-20, 227-28) Rationale: By the adoption of two specific resolutions, delegates to the 1989 synodical convention set in motion a process in which the Synod became involved in an evaluation of its organizational effectiveness in relation to its primary pur- pose. One, Res. 8-02A, asked the whole of the LCMS (con- gregations, District and national staffs, boards and commissions) to “involve itself in a coordinated planning and decision-making process to assure more effective and better coordinated services to congregations,” and also asked that “proposed structural changes be brought to the 1992 synodical convention for approval” should such changes seem advisable. More specifically in adopting Res. 1-01, “To Intensify and Prioritize Mission,” the Board of Directors was in- structed “to evaluate the structures of our Synod in the light of God’s primary purpose for the church” and to “rec- ommend to the 1992 synodical convention a structure for mission and ministry which gives priority to God’s primary purpose for the church.” The Board of Directors, in re- sponding to this directive, asked the Commission on Struc- ture to take the initiative on this matter and to develop” appropriate recommendations. These convention actions were the culmination of de- cisions already made by the 1986 synodical convention di- recting the Commission on Structure “to initiate churchwide discussions on the matter of planning and de- cision making in the church on all levels, and on the basis of these discussions .... submit to the 1989 convention proposals for improved planning and decision making, rec- ommending necessary structural changes” (Res. 5-01A).” In approaching these assignments the commission stud- ied past research, including the 1989 report of Colarelli, Meyer and Associates (CMA). The commission also asked the Synod’s Research Advisory Group whether these 19803 findings are still valid for the 1990s and were advised that various focus-group meetings and other research since - 1989 reinforce the CMA findings. Therefore, the CMA study, which involved 650 congregational, District, and na- tional leaders across all 35 Districts, and which contained the following eight “valued elements,” served as guiding principles to the commission in considering refinements in synodical structure. These “valued elements” indicate con- gregations desire the following: 1. A vision for the future of the LCMS that is based on wide input and review and that generates broad com- mitment and support. 2. The continued centrality of the congregations: * Congregations need high quality and timely service from Districts and the national office that meets their needs in carrying out the mission. + Districts and the national office need to respect and be sensitive to congregational uniqueness and diversity. ¢ Districts and the national office need to recognize that it isn’t easy for congregations to make input (but input has to be obtained nevertheless). There must be interactive, “high touch” methods to get congregational input. * The identification of needs and the development of programs and other interventions must be “close to” the congregations. 3. The bonding of congregations and Districts to each’ other through sharing of information, providing mu- tual assistance, and being a resource to each other. 4. A synodical leadership group that has an overall un- derstanding of the life of the church in today’s chang- ing world:(i.e., the “big picture”). ‘ 5. Funding by voluntary contributions from congrega- _ tions to Districts to the Synod. 6. Effectiveness of implementation: + Accountability: Somebody in charge, somebody who can follow up. « Efficiency: Less duplication, bureaucracy, and complexity. 7. Provision of some services from the national office, including ¢ Seminaries and colleges; * world mission; + Doctrinal review; * Curriculum resources; + Administrative and support services;