# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S331
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

V. REPORT OF THE 2016 RES. 4-03B TASK FORCE ON RECOGNIZED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
thereto. Common understandings of the program’s expectations and measures of success
have been far narrower. Perhaps the clearest
and best understood part of Synod’s expectations of RSOs has been the phrase “does not
act contrary to the doctrine and practice of the
Synod” (Bylaw 6.2.1), although application
of even this negative standard has occasioned
significant questions.

tions (WSOs), Educational Service Organizations (ESOs) and Mercy Service Organizations
(MSOs), are detailed below under “Segmentation of the Revitalized RSO Program” (see also
proposed Bylaw 6.2.2).
An important beneficial aspect of this
differentiation is that it allows identification
and recognition of RSO ministries in which cooperation-in-externals is possible, or in which
external inputs are economically necessary but
where such inputs limit the degree to which
the church can dictate the totality of activity.
This is not possible in the WSO area, which is
closely tied to the church’s pure proclamation.
Considering present RSO population, to a great
extent the MSO-type participant organizations
and to some extent the ESO participant organizations are already divided into two broad areas
of ministry: one in which the church acts freely
with its own resources (and to some extent,
among its own people); the other, in which
the organization leverages external resources
or operates in the regulated public sphere—
perhaps on a much larger possible scale, but
suffering the constraints inherent to such an
arrangement. This leads to another dimension
of differentiation, applicable only to these two
areas:

The task force identifies a need for a
clearer expression of the positive expectations
of participating organizations, which will serve
better by guiding relationships toward an ideal,
rather than simply revealing when they have
finally broken down. In terms of its positive
expectations, the RSO program should therefore be more explicitly and overtly tied to (1)
the constitutional and bylaw objectives of the
Synod; (2) the mission and ministry emphases,
priorities, and desired ends established for
the Synod by the convention and its mission
boards; and (3) the concrete benefits of the
programs to the member congregations of the
Synod and in tangibly multiplying the mission
and ministry efforts of such congregations.
(The foundation for these positive standards is
laid in proposed Bylaws 6.2.1–2; see the task
force’s bylaw proposal overture.)
This threefold elaboration of positive
purpose will make more concrete the desired
“harmony” of the RSO programs with the mission and ministry of the Synod and will focus
discussion on maximizing the mutual benefit
involved—benefit to the organization, which
receives recognition, enjoys enhanced support,
etc.—but also to the church, the Synod, and
most of all the congregations of the Synod and
their mission and ministry. Concrete, positive
expectations will foster continual growth and
improvement in the connection of organizations with the church: Is an RSO aligning
itself—not abstractly with its own perception
of its “ministry”—but concretely with the
priorities the congregations have established,
through conventions, for their (the church’s)
“life together”? Is an RSO merely providing a
social welfare service at the behest of congregations (or others), or is it working intentionally with the congregations of the Synod to
bring those served, ultimately, into their life
with Christ?
b)

Differentiating for Diversity—Nature of
Mission: The RSO program should continue
under its current, well-known name but with
RSOs classified, according to the type of work
they do, into three fundamental categories,
enabling appropriate standards, policies, and
practices to be specialized to best serve each.
These, including Witness Service Organiza-

331

c)

Differentiating for Diversity—MissionPerforming to Mission-Multiplying: With
regard to educational (ESO) and mercy (MSO)
organizations, the task force notes an existing
diversity in the degree to which the doctrine
and practice of the church can be at the evident
forefront of an RSO’s work. Some RSOs are
governed and funded by the church and suffer
little or no odious regulation, thus being able to
operate in all respects in an unconditioned way,
“from the strength that God supplies” and “as
the Spirit moves.” Others leverage government
funding, or for other reasons labor under the
regime of government regulation. Their choice
in any number of difficult questions is probably not as simple as whether to “follow the
ways of the world, instead of the ways of the
church.” In many cases, access to (or capacity for) the broad swath of mercy work the
organization was formed to accomplish relies
on accepting sometimes odious governmental
regulation or government funds with odious
strings, or perhaps on maintaining partnerships
with confessional bodies increasingly divergent
from ours on matters not only of the Gospel but
of revealed and even natural Law. (On this issue, of how RSOs and program administrators
navigate such a situation, and how the proposal
will help both, see the excursus below.)
The distinction of tiers of RSO membership (proposed Bylaw 6.2.2.1) is intended to
2019 Convention Workbook