# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S411
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

LIFE TOGETHER

•

•

•

•

practice of the Synod’s confessional position overtly in the
foreground of all they do; MSOs, by the nature of their work,
are involved in cooperation-in-externals mercy activities and
may rely on government or other support that enables the
scale or reach of their work but also limits the degree to
which unbridled proclamation can be at the forefront. To
“respect and not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of
the Synod” has a particular application to each situation,
which should be more explicit and more positively
elaborated than it now can be under one umbrella.
A revitalized RSO program should further acknowledge a
distinction, where appropriate and only within the ESO and
MSO categories, of those organizations that, due to
operating constraints, including government funding and
regulation, cannot in all their activities directly advance the
confessional position of the Synod (i.e., may have to suffer
odious regulation or cease activities). Recognition of these
organizations, which already exist in the RSO program, does
provide mutual benefit if the organizations are truly suffering
regulation and not themselves taking an adverse position,
and if the organizations offer services in a way that
concretely and demonstrably multiplies the ministry of
congregations. Acknowledging this distinction is a first step
toward better relationships. Such a distinction is not possible
in the WSO category, where “witness” activity is
intrinsically bound up with the Church’s confession.
Tier I RSOs have the ability to advance the mission of the
church purely and explicitly in every circumstance,
positively advancing our churchly confession, performing
the mission of the church, so that these may be urged to that
standard of practice.
Tier II MSOs and ESOs, on the other hand, operate under
such regulatory and financial constraints that the doctrine
and teaching of the church cannot be at the overt forefront of
all activities. Nonetheless, these latter are recognized for
multiplying the mission of the church. Tier II organizations
are expected to demonstrably do what they do in
coordination with, alongside, congregations and schools so
that their mission is multiplied. It may be the best they can
do is carry out some merciful purpose in a moral fashion, and
to do it in close proximity to congregational ministries of the
Synod, which have the freedom to proclaim Law and Gospel
with all the fullness of the church’s confession and practice.
The distinction of tiers is not a value judgment; simply an
acknowledgement that RSOs operate in two chief domains—
different domains, but both of service to the church and those
in need. Organizations operating in those generally larger
domains where the church is not the only input or authority,
although pressed hard in these days, are of immense value to
multiplying the church’s mercy and in supporting and
surrounding the church’s nearer and higher work of the
proclamation of Law and Gospel.
A revitalized RSO program should seek an expanded role for
districts in managing RSOs with local impact, involving
more significant district—RSO conversation in the
application and review process. Appropriate instruments
would be developed, completed by an RSO with the district
and then reviewed by Synod’s RSO office, to ensure that
program expectations are being applied uniformly. The

411

program should also provide much more explicitly for a
district president’s ecclesiastical oversight of an RSO’s
operations within his district. Association schools, governed
exclusively by Synod congregations (which do not require
RSO status to receive any benefit status could offer), should
as soon as possible be transitioned to simple district
recognition—reducing overhead and improving connections
with the appropriate district.
• The nature of calls by RSOs—especially by those not
governed exclusively by members of Synod member
congregations—should receive careful attention. RSOs will
be able to call if they agree to conditions similar to those for
other Synod calling organizations, including resolution of
call-related disputes through the Synod dispute resolution
process.
• A revitalized program should include increased interaction
and opportunities for cross-pollination among the RSOs and
Synod ministries. The task force suggests investigation of
triennial RSO conferences or other opportunities, without
dictating a specific, untried course.
• A revitalized program should include the possibility of
granting offices recovering a portion of their administrative
costs through appropriate fees, sharing mutually with the
organizations the cost of a mutually valuable relationship.
The task force’s proposals were presented in brief to the Council of
Presidents and Board of Directors of the Synod in November 2018.
Comment was also sought from Concordia Plan Services, the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund, and a representative swath of
various types of RSOs across the five regions of the Synod, with
comments incorporated into the final report of the task force in
January 2019. The task force feels that its proposal shows a way
forward supported by a broad consensus of Synod and RSO
constituents and is grateful for much fruitful and hopeful
conversation in the course of its work.
These proposals together, offered by consensus of the convention
task force membership at the conclusion of its work, with direction
given in the report for further development of policy and procedure
by responsible boards and offices, propose a revitalization of the
RSO program that can be expected—with the Lord’s blessing—to
strengthen the relationships between the Synod (and the Synod’s
congregations, schools, and agencies) and the incredible variety of
recognized organizations, and to increase the benefit of the program
to both.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the report of the Res. 4-03B Task Force on RSOs,
as included as R-61 in the 2019 Workbook, be approved as guidance
for revitalization of the program by the appropriate boards and
offices of the Synod, and that those boards and offices be directed
to proceed with development of policies and procedures required
for its implementation; and be it further
Resolved, That Bylaw 6.2.1 be amended, to consolidate the basic
program definition, to clarify that congregations may form RSOs,
to clarify ecclesiastical supervisory and oversight (cf. Bylaws 1.2.1
[k] and [o]) relationships between the RSOs and relevant district
presidents, to make explicit Synod’s expectations of RSOs
coordination in mission (both domestic and foreign), and to clarify
that Synod does not endorse or assume financial liabilities for the
organizations (long part of policies but heretofore omitted from the
bylaws), as follows:
2019 Convention Workbook