# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S25
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNOD REPORTS 25

new initiative. Sell advertisements to corporations. Seek grants to
launch the effort. Sell non-revenue producing assets to finance this
endeavor. Work with Concordia Publishing House, if appropriate,

and make this regularly published magazine so good that the added
revenue and enthusiasm for mission growth in our church would
easily pay for the magazine. As part of the pastor training (above)
develop ways to secure the home addresses of all our congrega-
tional members ... and while we are at it, develop a potential ‘‘e-
mail” communication site for professional church workers and
congregational members. Encourage “Sign-up” Sundays through-
out the church to build a synodical e-mail/snail mail address data-
base. Don’t let people tell you “it can’t be done”!!!

In addition to the above 3 communication initiatives we
must do a better job building mission relationships throughout our
church body. We must improve communication through the nat-
ural structure that exists right now from our national Synod to the

districts and then to the circuits and then to the congregations and

finally to the person in the pew. Every stewardship executive
knows that the best campaign is the EMV (Every Member -rela-

tional- Visit).

We believe that Synod can develop one-to-one relationships
with 35 districts (staff and officers) and we believe that districts,
in turn, can develop one-to-one relationships with pastors and con-
gregations, but that does not guarantee that congregations will feel
that relational ownership with the national Synod. Our previously
mentioned consultant, Dr. Roozen, gave illustrations of how much
smaller denominations than ours have sent a couple dozen national
officials out “on the road” to visit every congregation on a regular
basis. They listen, they share, they care, they tell the stories, and
they produce grass roots ownership for the national enterprise and
thé international mission.

We said to Dr. Roozen: “With 6,000 congregations that’s im-
possible.” He said, “Why? You have 35 district offices that are
Synod in that place.” And yet, somehow it usually doesn’t work
that way. We need to improve the role of the districts in communi-
cating the Synod story. Before the Structure and Governance task
force brings it’s report in 3-7 years, we believe there are several
ways we can use the existing structure of circuits, districts, min-
istry networks, etc. to develop closer relationships between the
Synod and the local congregation.

We recommend more and more responsibility be placed upon
the districts (Synod in that place) to be representatives of the na-
tional common good activities to the congregations. The Synod, in
turn, should offer the districts the information and materials to
“present the case.” Circuits should be a natural link in this chain of
improved communication. Sad to say anecdotal evidence tells us
as many as half our circuit structures are dysfunctional. If that is
true, we should not be satisfied with that structural breakdown. We
recommend the Council of Presidents develop a strategy to im-
prove communication through our existing structures until and if
those structures are eventually changed. We commend the Council
of Presidents’ new program of offering circuit winkels a united
Bible Study series pilot test for invigorating circuit winkels. The
upcoming national circuit counselor’s conference can go a long
way to re-emphasize the value of circuits in this relational commu-
nication process.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION #5: Structure Concerns

Much of our task force’s early discussion centered on the po-
tential duplication that exists in our current synodical structure.
Questions rose as to how many seminaries we need. Is two the right
number? Should there be only one? Or should there be 4 or 5? And
how should they be structured? Even more intense was our discus-
sion regarding the number of universities in the Concordia Univer-
sity System that are necessary for the training of professional and
lay church workers. If each district is doing mission work in their

area of ministry then why do we need a North American Missions
Department at the synodical level? Is a Black Ministry Commis-
sion still necessary? And what about other ethnic groups? And how
many districts do we really need? Could we be more efficient with
fewer districts in this age of technological communication? Or
could we win more souls for the kingdom if we had more districts
and just structured them differently? Some of our districts are very
large and offer a wide range of congregational services. Other dis-
tricts are so small that they cannot possibly offer the same services
to their congregations. Who can best provide “congregational ser-
vices” in these days of multiple resource venues? Are synodical
congregational services able to be provided by the districts? Or
would we be better served with district reductions in congregational
service staff and allow Synod to expand? Should the LCMS Foun-
dation be restructured so that the “banking, trust and investment”
part of their work come under LCEF and the development staff be
deployed to the various synodical entities that need their services?
World Relief (Human Care) is pretty much fully funded. Should
they be simply “cut loose” as a “corporate entity”? We recom-
mend the legislative representation system that has served us
since 1847 should be examined. In 1847, congregations were
more similar in size. With the emergence of congregations in
the 4,000—7,000 member range it is obvious that two votes for
each congregation is not at all representative of the baptized
membership of our Synod. This misrepresentation has signifi-
cant funding implications.

We discussed these and many other structure questions be-
lieving that these issues have a great deal to do with the longer-
range challenge of “funding the mission.” But we also
understand that the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Struc-
ture and Governance is in the process of studying these issues.
We have communicated to that task force our structure and
governance concerns. In the meantime, we commend various
districts for ongoing discussions that are presently being held
about cooperative ventures in staffing and missions. We com-
mend discussions that are being held by the Michigan, Ohio,
and Indiana districts concerning cooperative ventures. Similar
discussions are underway with the Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Rocky Mountain districts.

(E) THE NATIONAL UNRESTRICTED BUDGET

RECOMMENDATION #6: Management Efficiency

Until the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Governance and
Structure offers the Synod recommendations on what the structure
of our Synod should look like, we believe that the current structure
at the national level needs to undergo an operational audit that may
reveal additional areas of operating efficiencies so as to assure the
membership of the Synod that the national structure is operating as
efficiently as possible. Much has already been done in recent years.
We commend the Synod’s Board of Directors for training Synod’s
Internal Audit staff with the necessary skills to conduct operational
reviews. Each of the program boards has been audited for operating
efficiencies. We also commend the Facilities Services Management
Board for examining International Center operations for the pur-
pose of creating efficiencies where possible. We know that out-
sourcing of payroll, purchasing, technology support, building
maintenance, and cafeteria services need to be regularly exam-
ined for potential cost efficiencies. We encourage continual
analysis of outsourcing to assure these functions are conducted
in a cost-effective manner. Significant savings may also be ac-
complished if purchasing was combined by the Synod, its enti-
ties, and the districts to achieve larger contracts (and potential
savings) in the areas of insurance, technology support, benefits,

from ination of inefficien

extra penny we have for funding the mission. The last several years

2007 Convention Workbook