# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S342
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

342

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

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has always viewed
social ministry, or “ministry to the total man” as being important.
It has, however, left the doing of the actual work (beyond encouragement and coordination) to organizations formed by the congregations. An 1899 proposal that Synod would form a Department
of Charities to assume direct control of and responsibility for the
entire welfare ministry was not adopted; in 1901, though, Associated Lutheran Charities, a voluntary group, was formed. This was
an annual gathering of heads of social ministry entities that unified
and coordinated welfare ministry across the Synod.
Historically there were two minds among social ministries.
Some valued freedom to practice their own vision of ministry;
others desired to have their ministries widely acknowledged and
supported as the “gospel” ministries of the Synod. Over time,
more support for relief programs (in general) has been from public funds—even by the 1950s, only approximately 25 percent, and
that was mostly benefits paid to individuals. Today, many social
ministry entities operate with 80–90 percent of their funding coming from public sources. This shift to public funding has tied social service organizations increasingly to government interests and
regulation.
After World War II, the LCMS began officially to engage
in social service endeavors. In 1947, President Behnken was authorized to appoint an exploratory committee to retain a full-time
Executive Secretary of Social Welfare. The Synod sponsored a
post-war European Relief program under an Emergency Planning
Council. In 1950, the Synod established a Department of Social
Welfare to study and guide social welfare work across the Synod,
to aid in recruitment, and to expand chaplaincy service to government facilities. By the 1965 LCMS Convention, agencies, while
not under control of the Synod, were looking “to the Synod for
practical assistance and counsel in organizing and conducting their
work. The Board of Social Welfare has been charged by the Synod
with providing such services and endeavors to do this in the fullest
possible measure” (1965 Convention Report of Dr. Wind).
In 1967 the Lutheran Council USA was established; in 1977
the Lutheran Social Service System (LS3) brought together social work of the American Lutheran Church (ALC), the Lutheran
Church in America (LCA), and the LCMS. This is the beginning
of Lutheran Services in America (LSA), which would be formed
in 1997 as a formal “umbrella organization” gathering Lutherans
in the two major Lutheran church bodies around social ministry.
LCMS Conventions repeatedly addressed social ministry. The
1971 Convention adopted eight social ministry affirmations related
to the issues then current, including support for “programs in public
and private sectors that seek to eliminate the causes of poverty and
hunger, and comprehensive health care for all.” The 1986 and 1998
Conventions addressed themselves to improving Bylaw structures
supporting RSOs. In the 1990s and 2000s, in RSOs and SMOs (Social Ministry Organizations), the LCMS and the ELCA struggled
to continue together in “cooperation in externals” as LCMS and
ELCA increasingly diverged in doctrine and practice. In this period,
a 1999 statement of the CTCR, Faith Active in Love, forcefully
reiterated the church’s rationale for participating in social ministry.
In 2008, revised RSO procedures were adopted by the Board
of Directors and the present five-year renewal system was introduced. In 2010, in connection with Synod restructuring, the Board
of Directors revised RSO practice to coordinate RSO granting and
renewal only through the policy boards of Synod (BNM and BIM,
with exceptions for Synodwide Corporate Entities to grant status)
2019 Convention Workbook

rather than through all the various program boards. A standing committee was also established by the Board of Directors to oversee the
RSO program. Since the 2010 restructuring, management of the
program has been by the Office of National Mission. RSOs (exclusive of 140 association schools with RSO status) include 114 social
ministry organizations (including entities like Doxology and Grace
Place), 39 mission entities, 14 camps, 10 educational or universityrelated programs (including Lutheran Special Education entities,
some school-related counseling entities), 7 campus ministry organizations, and 2 communications entities. Approximately 5 percent
of applications are either encouraged to be withdrawn or are denied. The majority of the withdrawals or denials are pan-Lutheran;
the LCMS-only entities withdrawn or denied have been in relation
to government regulation of social work. 128 of all RSOs (other
than association school RSOs) are LCMS only; 57 are pan-Lutheran, with a variety of degrees of LCMS influence.
There are currently 140 association school RSOs. Some are no
longer truly association schools, but are independent LCMS-oriented schools. More schools and churches are severing into separate
corporations—and not only those in demographic or fiscal crisis.
Rostered workers with RSOs (other than the association
schools) include 89 pastors, 16 deaconesses, 11 DCEs, 13 teachers,
3 deacons, and 6 other DCO or other commissioned.
Strengths of RSOs include being the hands and feet of Christ,
fostering the ministry of the LCMS, showing compassion and
mercy to those in need, and offering servant opportunities. RSO
program oversight has a significant impact: 158 RSOs have appropriate language in their governing documents to ensure adequate
LCMS representation on their boards; 47 have improved this language since 2008; 28 are in the process of improving it. Challenges
include funding (federal and state budget cuts and strings), building Lutheran leaders, religious beliefs vs. state and federal laws,
adoption and foster care and civil union laws, non-discrimination
language, connections to congregations, and keeping up ratios of
LCMS board members (even for RSO association schools)

8. Review and concluding recommendations
An RSO Taskforce Survey was developed to test RSOs reactions to this document’s proposal and was distributed in December
2018 to 21 RSOs, evenly representative of the regions of the Synod
(with 5 or 6 surveyed RSOs active in each region) and of the types
of work undertaken by RSOs. Responses were received from eleven organizations, with two RSOs giving verbal responses and three
requesting additional time due to other circumstances.
Overall the responses to the survey questions were positive.
Regarding the district relationship and engagement all the RSOs
responded that they already had a close relationship with the district president. The comments indicated organizations felt they
had good communication, valued two-way communication, felt
supported and appreciated the district president having a visible
presence at their annual events. Responses to proposed expansion
of the district’s role in the oversight of RSO activities were much
more hesitant, with comments including that this would be inappropriate and overreaching, too time consuming for the district
president, and that they already have sufficient reporting requirements to state jurisdictions. These responses, however, seemed to
understand district presidents as getting involved in day-to-day supervision of general operations and employment supervision, areas
not appropriate for district involvement and not contemplated in the
proposal. Responses also reflected concern regarding the ecclesias-