# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S27 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) SYNOD REPORTS 27 Board for University Education 3 Board for Communication Services 1 Texas District Board of Directors 2 Lutheran Church Extension Fund 1 Total 302 The amount of the “partnership fee” is suggested to be: $ 250/year for organizations with annual budgets under $200,000 $ 500/year for organizations with annual budgets between $200,000-$1,000,000 $1,000/year for organizations with annual budgets between $1,000,000-$4,000,000 $2,000/year for organizations with annual budgets over $4,000,000 This fee is not to be considered optional. If an RSO refuses to share this partnership fee for three consecutive years their RSO sta- tus should not be renewed. We recommend the final design, com- munication, and implementation of this recommendation be determined by the Synod’s Chief Financial Officer and a rep- resentative of each of the synodical boards that recognizes these organizations. Other organizations that are deriving support from LCMS membership and benefit from synodical affiliation should also be encouraged to make a similar contribution to the common good ac- tivities of the Synod. Included in this “partnership” level should also be a large number of “Other Lutheran Associations” that de- rive benefit from synodical partnerships. They should prayerfully and joyfully consider supporting Synod’s “common good” activi- ties from their annual budgets (See pages 711-12 of the 2006 Lutheran Annual). RECOMMENDATION #10: Synod/District Fiscal Conference The Synod has 35 districts, each doing ministry on behalf of their congregations. Each of the districts owes their existence to the Synod and is enhanced in their ministry by the “common good” activities of the Synod. The districts are the first in the chain of relationships that must honestly face the steady decline in unre- stricted dollars that reach the national Synod. In 2004, LCMS members contributed $1.4 BILLION to their congregations. Congregations forwarded to their respective districts $121.7 million, which is approximately 9.3% of total congrega- tional offerings. Of this sum, the districts forwarded $20.88 mil- lion for the work of the unrestricted budget of Synod. That’s 1.5% of total congregational contributions for the unrestricted work of Synod. (Of course the congregations also contribute significant other amounts directly to restricted causes promoted by the dis- tricts, the Synod [missions, human care/world relief, etc.] and her entities, colleges, universities and seminaries.) With acknowledgment that we have shifted from a unified bud- get distribution of congregational contributions to a restricted model of giving, our task force believes that $20 million annu- ally of unrestricted funds should be the low-point in the decline of unrestricted funds reaching the national office from the dis- tricts. While presently there are huge disparities in the percentage of revenue that the 35 districts “‘pass on” to the Synod’s “common- good” activities it is the recommendation of this task force that an equalization formula be developed that is an honest reflec- tion of the distinct sizes, challenges and potential of the districts to increase their levels of support. We recommend a “FISCAL CONFERENCE” (these were held years ago) be called once every three years to bring together synodical and district lead- ers. With God-blessed sharing of mission and ministry chal- lenges, this “Fiscal Conference” should be expected to adjourn with a Synod/district agreement that will: 1) Determine the annual total amount of unrestricted dollars to be sub- mitted to the national budget by the 35 districts; 2) Decide the fair share of each district toward the fulfillment of the commitment from step #1; 3) Plan ahead 3 years in advance to aid in district/Synod planning; and 4) Gradually increase the total amount submitted to a level of at least $25 million by 2017. It will then be the challenge of each district to either communicate to their congregations the importance of supporting our “common good” activities through additional congregational distribution of of- ferings ... or to find efficiencies in their district budgets or through the combining of services with neighboring districts to make this gradual increase in support funds available to the national budget. The Synod, in turn, should offer the districts the information and ma- terials necessary to “‘present the case” to their congregations. Circuits could be a natural link in this chain of improved communication. (See the task force recommendation #4 regarding “Communica- tion.”) We would encourage districts to communicate to their congre- gations their expected “fair share” of unrestricted dollar contribu- tions through the districts. (See Recommendation #11.) RECOMMENDATION #11: Improved Congregational Support The Synod has 6,000 congregations whose historic support of Synod’s “common good” activities has come through the “work- at-large” contributions they make to their districts (and then a por- tion of that to the Synod) and any restricted direct gifts that are given to the various ministries of the Synod. The amount (%) that is given varies greatly. Sadly, way too high a portion of congrega- tions contribute nothing (or nearly nothing) to the “common good” work we have covenanted together to do. According to the statistics for 2004, 22% of ngregation 1,000 to the unrestricted work of district/Synod, 12% of Synod’ congregations contributed nothing to the unrestricted wor is- trict/Synod. They may donate to direct causes (within and beyond. the Synod). Anecdotal evidence suggests most of these congrega- tions make their decisions not because they can’t offer some sup- port, but because they choose not to. Many congregations do not even submit statistical information to the Synod. In the original 1847 constitution of the Synod one of the reasons for the forma- tion of the Synod was to gather common statistical data. Congre- gations should not ignore their responsibilities to support the Synod they have freely chosen to associate with. Especially when it is pointed out that each congregation receives many, many benefits from their synodical partnership. To name a few: Access for all workers to Concordia Plan Services, Access to all LCMS Publications, Access to all the services of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund, Access to all the services of the Lutheran Foundation, Access to trained church workers, Access to legislative voice and vote, etc. Since the days when a “unified budget” approach to funding the mission is gone, our task force recommends that each con- gregation of our Synod receive each year the kind of informa- tion that allows them to re-evaluate the blessings and the responsibilities of synodical membership. Years ago many dis- tricts offered congregations a “suggested amount” of unre- stricted support expected of the congregations. The districts best know the health and potential of the congregations, the historic giving patterns, and the challenges of the congrega- tions. It’s time to go back to that. It is clear we need an advo- cate for the district and Synod need of unrestricted financial support. It is the recommendation of this task force that in- 2007 Convention Workbook