# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S340
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

340

V. REPORT OF THE 2016 RES. 4-03B TASK FORCE ON RECOGNIZED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
a first call. It is the expectation of the task force that an
organization recognized by the Synod, if it calls church
workers as such, would call only those on the roster (or
candidates for rostering) in the LCMS.
•

convention. Moreover, agency calls should contain clear
descriptions to indicate that the call is of such a nature
that the candidate may assure himself that the call is
truly within the scope of the office of the public ministry
or the appropriate auxiliary office.

With regard to the calling bodies, it is also the understanding of the task force that one body cannot properly
at the same time extend divine calls to workers of different confessions, as this would be for it to be of contradictory confession. The CTCR noted the following in its
1981 document, “The Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and
Nomenclature,” pp. 15–17:
In considering the office of the public ministry one must
consider the relationship between “parish pastors” and
“non-parish pastors.” …
Some would solve problems in this area by asking what
a man does during the week. Does he preach from the
pulpit every Sunday? Does he celebrate communion
once a month or more often? Does he make sick and
shut-in calls? On that score only parish pastors—and
not even some of them—would qualify as being in the
office of the public ministry. The more theologically
appropriate questions to ask are the following: Has the
church found an individual to be qualified for the office
of the public ministry? Has the church called him to
exercise an overseeing and shepherding ministry in the
church? Has the church formally called him to hold the
office of the public ministry and entrusted him with the
responsibility of that office, even though it may ask him
to specialize in certain functions of this office? And is
he, upon installation into the office, pledged to be and
remain accountable for the faithful conduct of his office
to God, to the church, and to the believers committed
to his care? Questions such as these indicate a need for
clarity and precision in the issuing of “calls.”

And the same document, from pp. 26–27:
Not only a local congregation but also larger structures
of the church may legitimately extend valid calls upon
proper delegation. The right of a congregation to call
its pastors and teachers is not questioned. Some do
question the right of agencies such as Districts or boards
and commissions of the Synod or even the whole Synod
itself to issue calls. For this reason some take refuge in
obtaining a second call as “assistant” in a congregation,
feeling that such a call, although it involves few or no
duties, is valid, while a call from an agency is not. The
legitimacy of such a “second” call is questionable.
The very existence of the Synod indicates that the
church must do some of its work jointly. The Synod is
not an alien organization. It is the whole confessional
fellowship of congregations. In this case, by common
agreement, certain offices are filled by the Synod or
its commissions through authority delegated from the
congregations. Agencies of any kind should first assure
themselves that the right to call has been properly delegated to them by the church. In some cases this is done
by regulations in the bylaws that are agreed upon in
2019 Convention Workbook

Some offices in the church cannot be defined with
absolute clarity merely by referring to their titles. The
call itself should demonstrate why it is a “call” and not
merely an office of employment as a lay worker in the
church.
For the church to be extending a call in a proper churchly fashion, the confessional standard in which that call is extended must be
clear. And that means that those doing the calling must be agreed
upon the meaning of the Scriptures and Confessions under which
they are calling the worker to serve, and under which he or she
will be supervised. Recognized Service Organizations are granted
the ability to extend a regular call by virtue of their recognition.
Such a call is to be considered a call to trans-parochial service in
the church, extended on behalf of the congregations of the Synod,
and under their confessional standards (very much like a call by
district or Synod). Where the RSO itself is governed by those of
mixed confession, it must consider its right to extend a regular call,
recognized by the Synod, as a sacred trust.
Witness organizations may not be of mixed governance; Mercy organizations, in the work of which cooperation in externals is
possible, may be of mixed governance, as may be some Educational
organizations. It may well be the best solution that in such a circumstance, the organization not extend calls as a monolithic entity
(of mixed confession), but that an LCMS subset of the governing
board be empowered to call for and on behalf of the organization,
or that the district endorse a chaplaincy or similar auxiliary position
with the organization as a place of active service without a regular
call (a model already in well-established use for chaplains of institutions that have no RSO status: prisons, state hospitals, secular
aging or residential facilities, etc.).
The task force feels, however, that a thorough conversation
of the doctrine of the call as it relates to recognized service organizations should not be shortchanged, and that the long history of
allowing such calls should not be disrupted, but rather improved
upon. Hence, the proposal that when an RSO of any type or governance prepares to call, it must consult with the appropriate district
president and must obtain his approval that the call documents appropriately safeguard the ability and expectation of the worker to
carry out his or her ministry in accordance with the doctrinal and
practical standards of the Synod.
•

With regard to the work the call entails, it is the task
force’s opinion that the work should be substantially the
work of the office the worker holds (i.e., the Word- or
Word-and-Sacrament work of an ordained minister, or
the corresponding work of the various auxiliary/commissioned offices) if a call is to be extended, unless the
position is an administrative one substantially involved
in the execution of such ministries by others (e.g., a pastor or deaconess might be called as a director of chaplaincy or diaconal ministry, even if an administrative
role, but would not properly be called as an accountant
or facilities engineer).