# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S104
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNODICAL REPORTS 103

R8-01
Report of Task Force on National/District Synod Relations

Introduction

This is the second and final report of the Task Force (TF). As directed by 1998 Res. 7-02A, the TF completed and posted on the
Synod’s Web site a preliminary report in July 2000 (one year before the 200! synodical convention). A paper copy of that report was
mailed to every congregation of the Synod in late July and early August 2000. As of mid-February 2001 approximately 200 written re-
sponses have been received. The members of the TF thank all who communicated their thoughts. The TF is persuaded that this process of
issuing a preliminary copy and receiving reactions before finalizing a complex report is valuable and constructive. It has learned much
from its respondents and accordingly has changed some of its recommendations.

Responses to the preliminary report show that differing expectations pave the way for different reactions. The TF would like to reflect
for a moment on ifs expectations and assumptions. It agrees with many respondents that structure does not drive mission but rather provides
a scaffolding for mission and ministry to take place. Further, it is aware that church polity arrangements are human inventions. The TF
therefore views its work as quite ancillary to the much more important efforts of our congregations to tell the Good News about Jesus to
unbelievers and believers alike. However, the TF is of the opinion that the basic polity of our Synod has served its purpose well in the past
and that it can continue doing so into the future.

A repeated criticism of the preliminary report is that its recommendations would bring about centralization of authority within the
Synod. Some respondents go on to claim that such organizational design must be bad for the 21st century. But matters are not so simple.
“The ... church must learn both to decentralize and centralize; both demassify and massify” (Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami [Zondervan,
1999], 159). Moreover, various sorts of centralization exist. One is the centralization of power within particular agencies of the Synod. It
might be noted that the Synod’s existing structure is designed to avoid such “oligarchical centralization” at the District level or elsewhere.
An appendix to the preliminary report, included below, summarizes the relationship between Districts and the national Synod based on cur-
rent Constitution and Bylaw provisions. The TF takes very seriously the assignment to “study the Synod as it exists” (1998 Res. 7-02A).
The Synod has not expressed a wish to change the essentials of its current structure. The TF does not opt for a fundamental redesign, ei-
ther toward centralization or decentralization.

Contrary to claims by critics of the TF, this pattern of church government does not include “autonomy” for the Synod’s Districts. Dis-
tricts, for example, have the same Constitution as the national Synod. They are bound to carry out resolutions adopted by the Synod in con-
vention. These and similar provisions serve to protect congregations, assuring them when they join the Synod that their District will not
take them in doctrinal or administrative directions contrary to those of the Synod as a whole.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is a national church body composed of congregations and has divided itself into Districts. As
such, it has structural resources with which to work in a 2] st century environment. Congregations remain the Synod’s building blocks. The
Synod provides many services at the District level, closer to congregations than the national office. However. there is room for improve-
ment in this structure. The TF therefore suggested modifications in its preliminary report. It recommended new Bylaws that would cease
imposing the same board and staff structure on all Districts. lt recommended relieving Circuit Counselors of the responsibility to promote
synodwide and District programs to their Circuit congregations. It also recommended an overall reevaluation of District boundaries as the
new century opens. The TF recognizes the need for flexibility in structure and program and for possible District reconfiguration to serve
local and regional needs. It reiterates these recommendations in the present report.

The TF is firmly convinced that scriptural and confessional doctrine and practice continue to be indispensable for our church body at
all levels. Our forefathers founded a Synod over 150 years ago for “the preservation and furthering of the unity of pure confession (Eph.
4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and to provide common defense against separatism and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17)” and for “protection and preser-
vation of the rights and duties of pastors and congregations” (“Our First Synodical Constitution,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly
16 [April 1943]: 2). These objectives require the Synod to exercise ecclesiastical supervision of its members. The importance of these ob-
jectives has hardly decreased since 1847. Ecclesiastical supervision remains an essential function that can be better carried out together
than alone—especially at a time when people find it difficult to recall their theological and spiritual heritage.

As in its preliminary report, the TF raises one initial point for clarification. Bylaw 4.07 a notes that “A District is the Synod itself.” But
the current form of this Bylaw adds: “performing the functions of the Synod.” This wording can be misleading if it is understood to vest
the Districts with all the authority and prerogatives of the Synod as a whole. Therefore the TF offers the following overture to refine this
Bylaw’s language.

8-16

To Clarify Relationship between Synod and Districts
Resolved, That the synodical Bylaws be amended as proposed:

CURRENT PROPOSED
4.07 Relationship between the Synod and Districts 4.07 Relationship between the Synod and Districts
a. The Synod is not merely an advisory body in relation to a a. The Synod is not merely an advisory body in relation to a
District. A District is the Synod itself performing the functions of District. Resolutions of the Synod are binding upon the Districts.
the Synod. Resolutions of the Synod are binding on the Districts. As a District acts under the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions

of the Synod, it acts with the authority of the Synod.
Ecclesiastical Responsibility
Visitation

From its very beginnings our Synod has included in its Constitution an expression of its determination under Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions to preserve “the unity of the true faith” and to guard against separatism, sectarianism, and heresy (Constitution, Art. III 1). It

2001 Convention Workbook