# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S317
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

INTERNATIONAL WITNESS
other workers for the ministries and areas within its direct responsibility (emphasis added),” it clearly meant that other agencies of
the Synod may have their own foreign mission efforts within their
own direct responsibility, and such bylaw does not address at all the
mission efforts of congregations, auxiliaries, and recognized service
organizations; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724 concludes “that for the sake
of good order and effectiveness, the Board for International Mission
is to serve as the Synod’s only sending agency through which workers and funds are sent to the foreign mission areas of the Synod,” but
it does not include the words from 1981 Handbook Bylaw 2.213, to
“call, appoint, assign, withdraw, and release missionaries (pastors
and teachers) and other workers for the ministries and areas within
its direct responsibility, always safeguarding the rights of the partner
churches and workers involved” (emphasis added), which language
limits the authority of the Board for Missions for the mission workers within its direct responsibility; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724, referring to 2013 Res. 1-08,
“To Work Together in Mission,” called for a twofold response: First,
“Resolved, That the Synod, by the next convention, develop and
provide a mission best-practices policy document for districts and
congregations engaged in mission projects to assist them to better
carry out their mission and their life together,” indicating that districts and congregations have and are recognized to have mission
work and practices of their own, and because they have their own mission work and practices, the Synod should assist and support those
efforts by developing a best-practices policy; and second, “That
these best practices include encouragement to districts and congregations to communicate their international mission activities to the
Synod’s Director of Church Relations and Offices of National and
International Mission for the purposes of healthy coordination and
good stewardship” (emphasis added), indicating that districts and
congregations can have their own mission activities and when they
do they are encouraged to communicate these activities to the Synod
for coordination and good stewardship; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724 Section C, “Congregations
and Foreign Missions,” referring to the Task Force II Report to the
1981 Synod convention, indicates “two basic functions guiding the
Synod in its restructuring at that time,” both of which indicate the
Synod has no “control” over congregations (in this area, the Synod
is not hierarchical but congregational in polity), first “In support of
the congregation,” where the Synod is to “help the congregations”
and “assist the congregations in their mission and ministry,” and second “In behalf of congregations,” where the Synod serves “in behalf
of the congregations by enabling congregations to do together that
which individual congregations could not do by themselves or could
not do very well, such as foreign mission work and the training of
pastors and teachers at colleges and seminaries,” and which clearly
indicates (“could not do very well”) that congregations can and are
free to do foreign mission work, albeit perhaps not as well as when
assisted by the Synod; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724 continues with the two basic
functions being “closely reflected in paragraphs (a) and (b) of current Bylaw 1.1.1 (2013 Handbook, p. 23): (a) The Synod functions in
support of its member congregations by providing assistance as congregations conduct their ministries locally, as well as their ministries
at large, and (b) The Synod on behalf of its member congregations
administers those ministries that can be accomplished more effectively in association with other member congregations through the
Synod. In this way member congregations utilize the Synod to assist

317

them in carrying out their functions of worship, witness, teaching
and nurture, service and support,” (emphasis added), which in no
way indicates that the Synod has the authority to control the congregations; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724 then refers to Constitution
Article VII, drawing its own conclusions in regard to it, which interpretation would be better conducted only after the Synod has studied
Article VII as 2010 Synod Convention Res. 8-32B, “To Study Article
VII of Synod’s Constitution,” calls upon the Synod to do; and
Whereas, In regard to Auxiliaries and Foreign Missions, CCM
Opinion 14-2724 correctly uses the bylaw words that auxiliaries are
required to “ ‘operate with freedom and self-determination as a ministry…while complying with the responsibilities’ outlined (Bylaw
6.1.2 [c]),” then lists those responsibilities as “coordinat[ing] plans
and programs with those of the Synod through regular sharing and
contact” (Bylaw 6.1.2 [d], to “report annually to the President of
the Synod, provide an annual program report to the Synod, keep the
Synod advised of any new program under consideration, honor and
uphold the doctrine and practice of the Synod, and, while operating
with freedom and self-determination in their mission independent of
control by the Synod, respect protocol documents that exist between
the Synod and her partner churches (Bylaw 6.1.3)” (emphasis added),
does not give the Synod control, but rather denies control on the part
of the Synod; and
Whereas, In regard to Recognized Service Organizations and
Foreign Missions, CCM Opinion 14-2724 correctly indicates that
“Therefore Bylaw 3.8.3 does not apply to recognized service organizations,” but it incorrectly adds “per se” after that phrase, for Bylaw
3.8.3 simply does not apply to recognized service organizations,
regardless of any other bylaw wording that the CCM might incorrectly conclude in regard to the Board of International Mission (a
policy-making board in regard to congregations, districts, auxiliaries,
and recognized service organizations, as well as to colleges, universities, and seminaries, even though Opinion 14-2724 does not refer to
colleges, universities, and seminaries) or the Office of International
Mission, for neither the Board nor the Office of International Mission
is given any “control” over these entities connected to the Synod; and
Whereas, The interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws of
CCM Opinion 14-2724 indicates a need for a clarification of the
bylaws; therefore be it
Resolved, That the last paragraph of Bylaw 3.8.3 be amended to
read:
PROPOSED WORDING
3.8.3 The Board for International Mission is charged…
Upon the recommendation of the Office of International Mission,
the board shall serve as the only sending agency through which
workers and funds are sent to the foreign mission areas on behalf of
national Synod or the agencies of national Synod of the Synod, including the calling, appointing, assigning, withdrawing, and releasing of missionaries (ministers of religion—ordained and ministers
of religion—commissioned) and other workers for the ministries in
foreign areas. However, the Office of International Missions shall issue all such calls as may be requested by other agencies of the Synod
acting on behalf of national Synod in the areas of their responsibility. Districts may continue to issue such calls on behalf of districts
and agencies of the districts. Nothing shall prohibit or restrict the
right of auxiliaries, recognized service organizations, and congregations to call workers to any mission field, although each is requested
to cooperate with the Board for International Mission in advising the
Board for International Mission of such efforts.”

and be it further
2016 Convention Workbook