# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S333
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

V. REPORT OF THE 2016 RES. 4-03B TASK FORCE ON RECOGNIZED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

tion and be supported by the Synod RSO office
as districts and organizations have questions
about the process and associated standards,
or as new questions arise. The Synod RSO
office would have the bulk of its time freed
to deal deeply with these challenges, which
are of some frequency, and would retain the
coordinative role that has been found to be
so essential to the proper functioning of the
program. Staff time will also be freed to extend
and improve upon the opportunities for growth
and interaction extended through the program
to current and prospective RSOs. One possible
component is the creation, at the district level,
of “RSO committees,” like the bylaw-required
constitutional committees that already exist, to
assist district presidents in their work of assisting in the administration of the RSO program
for local or district-centric RSOs.

such organizations about doing God’s work in
compromised circumstances. These concerns
are certainly not confined to a few RSOs.
The task force notes that inclusion of
Tier II organizations in the RSO program is
not without risk. One fundamental benefit of
RSO participation for Tier I organizations is a
united “religious freedom” defense against the
imposition of odious regulation or the demands
of social pressure. The inclusion of Tier II organizations that may (to one extent or another)
bend to such forces may complicate the argument, on behalf of Tier I organizations, that the
doctrine and practice of our religion requires
them to act differently than the culture expects.
This tension is by no means new, nor does the
task force consider that it has exhausted its
discussion.
d)

Differentiating for Diversity—Scope of
Operations: In a third dimension of diversification, for organizations operating within
one geographical district, within the various
subtypes of the program, instruments will
be developed eventually to shift the bulk of
evaluation, visitation, and oversight work with
RSOs from the Synod to the relevant district,
while retaining, for the sake of consistency and
assurance of standards, final approval authority in the Synod RSO office. (As noted above,
for many schools, those governed solely by
congregation(s) of the LCMS, there will be no
need to apply for RSO status at all. These will
simply be recognized by the district, on the basis of an instrument, and reported to the Synod.
This can take place under present bylaws and,
the task force suggests, should be facilitated
and urged as soon as possible.)
For other local or district-centric organizations, district presidents have always had
essential input into the application of such an
organization, but they and their staff will now
gradually come to have a formal administrative
role in completing, with the organization applying or renewing, an instrument that explores
corporate governance, doctrinal and practical
issues, policy, and material instances of cooperation and coordination with local congregations, schools, and agencies of the Synod. The
final decision to grant or withdraw status, and
the making of the legal agreement involved,
remains with the Synod office, but the bulk of
the contact is rendered more local, increasing
the possible frequency, volume, and value of
that contact, and strengthening the ties of a local organization with the district that is “Synod
in that place” (proposed Bylaw 6.2.4).
Such an instrument would maintain and
build on the present elements of RSO evalua-

333

The sharing of the administrative burden
(and opportunities for growth and nurture) of
the RSO program with the respective districts
will take time to develop—and will better
develop naturally over time than all at once in
untried and overly-specific bylaws. The task
force proposes that the LCMS Board of Directors, mission boards, and RSO Office work
gradually with the districts to decentralize and
enhance the interaction with organizations—the
direction being established, but the pace and
plan being allowed to develop organically.
e)

Ecclesiastical Oversight by Districts and
Cross-District RSOs: While RSOs operate
with freedom and independence in their mission and governance, they do so as subject,
like all members and agencies of the Synod, to
the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions,
and they do so in proximity to the congregational and other ministries of the church. Those
entrusted with ecclesiastical supervision in
the districts of the Synod need more explicit
encouragement and support in their role of
oversight of these organizations’ activities
in relation to the church. Proposed bylaw
language provides explicitly for ecclesiastical
oversight (oversight is “to monitor; to make
inquiry and receive a response thereto; to make
suggestions; to bring concerns to the attention
of a higher authority” [Bylaw 1.2.1 (o)], in this
case the LCMS RSO status-granting office;
ecclesiastical oversight is oversight, in particular, of the organization’s relationship to the
church) of RSO activities within a district by
that district’s president, even if the organization
is headquartered elsewhere. This would be in
addition to the ecclesiastical supervision (Bylaw 1.2.1 [i]) that president already has over
the individual, rostered members of the Synod
employed by the RSO within his district. In the
2019 Convention Workbook