# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S338
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

338

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

The leadership and resources of some arise, for the most part, within the Synod. These organizations are able to conform all their work
freely, in every respect, to the doctrine and practice of the Synod,
performing works of mercy in intimate connection with unfettered
proclamation of Law and Gospel. Other organizations rely heavily
on funding from outside our churchly confession (often governmental) or operate in areas regulated by the government and are,
therefore, subject to constraints. They may also have leadership
aligned in externals but of greater diversity in doctrine—but engage
in mercy work (in which cooperation in externals is possible) rather
than proclamation.
MSOs have heretofore been lumped with witness (WSO) and
educational (ESO) organizations, whose role is to positively advance, in the very essence of their work, the doctrine and practice
of the Synod. All have fallen under the same broad rule: an RSO
“respects and does not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of
the Synod” (Bylaw 6.2.1). But the essence of the MSO’s work is
not to advance doctrine but to facilitate works of mercy, as the third
triennial mission priority puts it, “in close proximity to word and
sacrament ministries” (2016 Proceedings, 254).
MSOs, to the extent they multiply the church’s inputs with
public funds and to the extent they operate in publicly regulated
fields of mercy work, operate under significant constraints. Child
and family services, for example, may be faced with regulations
requiring equal consideration of foster or adoption placements into
immoral living situations (2007 Res. 6-03A). Housing or aging
care efforts, likewise, will have to deal with sexual orientation /
gender identity regulations when considering whether they may accommodate same-sex couples or accept overt transgender expression in their facilities, which are in some respect publicly funded
or “public accommodations.” (Even an institution governed solely
by Synod members and with the purest of motives, but accepting
government reimbursements or subject for various other reasons to
regulation, may be faced with such issues.) Similar considerations
relate broadly to all manner of organizations regarding employment
and benefits provided to employees and their dependents.
Organizations may thus find themselves with a hard choice:
suffer (to some extent) contrary, perhaps severe, regulations, requiring accommodation of some harm, or suffer the severe loss of
capacity to do good in a potentially vast space. An organization
faced with such choices might capitulate to the state, without concern for its obligations to conscience and church, or it might withdraw entirely from the spaces in which regulations would compel it
to act, in some respects, if not doing evil, at least accommodating it.
A more moderate way is for it to do the best it can with what it has,
intending in the best sense to “sin boldly” in the hope of God the
Lord bringing good out of the evil imposed on it from outside. For
organizations in that fight, one valuable benefit of participation in
the RSO program is that the churchly character of their work is underscored, improving the argument for First Amendment and other
legal protections of their work from outside interference.
The call of rostered workers holding positions with MSOs
having pan-Lutheran governance has raised significant questions
about the doctrine of the call. How can a body of mixed confession
call a rostered worker of the Synod? What are the obligations of a
worker to a body of mixed confession? The fact that RSOs have not
been an eligible party to the dispute resolution system (Bylaw section 1.10) of the Synod has left such workers relatively unprotected,
if their adherence to the confessional standards of the Synod leads
to conflict with varied confessional expectations of their employers
2019 Convention Workbook

or ecclesiastical supervisors. The bylaw proposal intends to clarify
that when an MSO calls LCMS workers, it must do so with an explicit acknowledgement that the RSO expects them to perform according to LCMS confessional and practical standards.
The most common case where this would be a concern would
be with a recognized medical, residential, or aging facility, having
mixed governance and on-staff chaplains. Under the proposed standard such an organization could continue to call an LCMS chaplain, provided that the appropriate district president is consulted
and provided that the call document clearly stipulates the expectation that the chaplain will serve under LCMS doctrine and practice.
(There might also be the possibility of a WSO subsidiary activity
recognized alongside an MSO, if the chaplaincy subsidiary meets
the requirements of WSO recognition.)
There is yet another option for a chaplain to have active roster
status when serving in a position in which a call is not possible,
namely, that the district can endorse the position as a specialized
pastoral ministry the constitutes active service in the Synod. This
mechanism is often used by a district to acknowledge and place on
active roster status a chaplain serving a public hospital, state prison,
etc., but in the capacity of and according to the standards of an
LCMS minister. This option could be used in the case of an MSO
that has workers desiring active roster status but does not submit (or
has not yet submitted) to the above procedure.

3.3.1 Existing Types of MSO Activity
There are at present 114 RSOs that fall into the MSO category,
57 of which are pan-Lutheran, and 57 are LCMS only. They engage
in all manner of work: Abuse/Neglect Prevention/Treatment; Adoption; Advocacy & Planning; Aging/Elderly Services; Cancer Care
Ministry; Children & Youth Services; Counseling & Mental Health;
Developmentally Disabled Services; Disaster Preparedness/Response; Emergency Services and/or Relief; Foster Care; Mercy
Granting; Grief Support; Hearing-/Visually-Impaired Services;
HIV/AIDS Ministry; Hospice; Housing & Community Development; Humanitarian Relief; Immigrant, Asylee, Refugee Resettlement/Support; Information & Referral; Maternity Home; Organizational Consultation & Development (purely administrative);
Orphanage Support; Pregnancy Counseling; Substance Abuse &
Other Addiction Prevention/Treatment; Trauma Intervention; Veterans Services; Volunteer Service Program

3.3.2 Tier I MSO 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 most
fully informed by Const. Art. II) “Christian concern, love, and compassion in meeting human needs” (Const. Art. III 4). The mercy
work provided by the MSO aims to deliver spiritual as well as
physical mercy, is conducted “in close proximity to Word and Sacrament ministry” (Triennial priority 3, 2016 Proceedings, 254), and
is intentionally oriented toward the inclusion of those served into
the full life of an LCMS or partner congregation. Intentionally and
demonstrably seeks to “multiply the mission” of congregations and
schools of the Synod.