# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S337
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

V. REPORT OF THE 2016 RES. 4-03B TASK FORCE ON RECOGNIZED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
that such a school “is called upon to make differing and
conflicting commitments.”
In response, the 2001 convention adopted Res. 2-02A,
“To Develop a Pastoral Strategic Plan to Address RSO
Schools” (Proceedings, 126–8), devising a plan for
regular local evaluation of jointly-governed schools on
the basis of criteria developed by the LCMS statusgranting board (at the time, the Board for Congregational Services, now the Board for and Office of National
Mission), with the requirement that issues of noncompliance identified be dealt with in no more than three
years, that RSO status not be granted to any new schools
affiliated also with the ELCA, and that RSO status be
revoked for any organization that newly affiliates also
with the ELCA. Anecdotally, this plan was never fully
or uniformly implemented by the districts.
Regardless of its governance, a recognized school will
“engage in program activity that is in harmony with the
programs of the boards of the Synod, and respects and
does not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of the
Synod” (Bylaw 6.2.1). The task force recommends that
the plan of 2001 Res. 2-02A—intended to ensure that
these “grandfathered” jointly governed schools operate
according to the highest standards of the Scriptures and
Lutheran Confessions—be renewed, with the Board for
Congregational Services being replaced with the Office
of National Mission, and that compliance be required
for continuation of status.
Two additional developments have been noted among RSOrelated schools that policies will have to address if all schools are to
be related to with maximum usefulness:
•

•

Subsidiary schools: Recently, a new governance model
has developed by which a social ministry RSO operates
one or more schools as part of its portfolio of activities, in some cases “taking up” where a parish has been
compelled by circumstances to “leave off.” The school
continues as a Lutheran school, operated in close coordination with a parish, but is governed by the RSO. The
distinction of types of RSO in this proposal, and the fact
that educational facilities would of necessity be evaluated on a per-site basis, suggests that a Mercy Service
Organization (MSO) operating an Educational Service
Organization (ESO) as a subsidiary would need to seek
a separate status “endorsement” for its ESO component,
which would be subject to the expectations of any other
ESO. Operation of a school is a fundamentally different
type of activity, with different concerns, and is handled
on a site-by-site basis.
Schools with competing commitments: Finally, the
issue has emerged of schools that are in some manner
associated with Synod member congregations or recognized organizations, but that are operated as charter or
voucher schools, largely funded by the state. Present and
potential future regulations, in some cases, do not allow
the school to operate generally in the traditional sense
of a Lutheran school, providing “processes of thorough Christian education and nurture” or as “agencies

337

of [specifically, pervasively, and uniformly] Christian
education.” If instruction in the doctrine and practice
of the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions occurs, it is
ancillary to a program of education comparable to that
provided by a secular school, and perhaps not obligatory
for all students. The arrangement may be described as a
charter school with a Lutheran “wraparound” program.
The existence of schools operating in the “competing
commitments domain” suggests the following use of the
“tiered” model. Schools of the second-tier type already
exist within the RSO program. The acknowledgement
of these tiers “calls a thing what it is” and enables particular criteria and procedures to be developed for each
tier, preventing the whole lot from falling into a “least
common denominator” mode while acknowledging that
good work can be done on an impressive scope, with
significant care, in an environment that might otherwise
be compromised by other commitments.

3.2.3 Tier I ESO in the Restructured RSO
Program: “Mission/Ministry Performing
‘In’ the Church”
Governed exclusively by those in doctrinal and practical fellowship with the Synod and striving to provide (in the sense of
Const. Art. II) “thorough Christian education and nurture” (Const.
Art. III 5). Doctrinal and practical education in the faith is thoroughly and fully Lutheran in “all such things as I [the Lord Jesus]
have commanded you” (Matt 28) and pervades the curricular and
extracurricular program. The school is strongly connected with a
congregation or congregation(s).

3.2.4 Tier II ESO in the Restructured RSO
Program: “Mission/Ministry Performing
‘Alongside’ the Church”
A school that may be governed less than entirely by those in
doctrinal and practical fellowship with the Synod. Teaches nothing
contrary to the doctrine or practice of the Synod but achieves less
than the Christian curricular standard expected of a Tier I ESO.
May be a charter school, relying on government support to teach
a moral but not distinctively or pervasively Lutheran or Christian
general curriculum, augmented with Lutheran doctrinal classes or a
“wraparound” program. Must on a regular basis demonstrate that it
is intentionally and strongly helpful to the mission and ministry of
particular LCMS congregation(s).

3.3 Mercy Service Organization (MSOs)
MSOs (proposed Bylaw 6.2.2 [c]) further or facilitate the
mercy work of the church, serving in a domain where cooperation in externals is possible, and in various settings performing a
scale of mercy work that our congregations would struggle to attain on their own. The Synod has recognized such organizations
as increasing the capacity of its congregations along the lines of
its fourth objective (Const. Art. IV), the provision of opportunities for expression of “Christian concern, love, and compassion in
meeting human needs.” They also align with and extend Synod’s
third, fourth, and seventh triennial priorities (see 2016 Res. 4-02A,
Proceedings, 145–6).
Because cooperation in externals is possible in an MSO’s
work, these organizations run the gamut in terms of governance.
2019 Convention Workbook