# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S193
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PROGRAM AND FINANCE 193

found in the Synod’s past, a time when the Synod was more har-
monious in doctrine and practice, with such proposal to be ready a
year in advance of the 2010 Synod convention; and be it finally

Resolved, That the members of the Synod that have violated the
Word of God by false teaching and practice repent of such sins and
seek forgiveness from their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ so
that true reconciliation may be reached within the Synod.

Fairmont Circuit 23 Forum
Minnesota South District

4-07

To Reject Task Force Proposal
for Resolving Divisions in Synod

WHEREAS, The 2004 LCMS convention resolved that the Synod
President appoint a task force to look into the current funding
process for the Synod in order that it might report its funding rec-
ommendations back to the 2007 convention; and

WHEREAS, That convention amended the original motion, in-
structing the task force “to demonstrate that the funding system it
proposes is supported by Scripture”; and

WHEREAS, The Blue Ribbon Task Force released this report in
July 2006; and

WHEREAS, The report admits that one “significant roadblock”

as “‘the division in our Synod and the resultant mistrust that seems

to permeate and impact every level of funding decisions” (p. 7);
and

WHEREAS, The report admits that the divisions in The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod are “serious matters of doctrine and prac-
tice that we need to define more clearly” (p. 13); and

WHEREAS, The report proposes that the current divisions in our
Synod, such as “‘worship practice, the role of laity, close Commu-
nion, the role of women, and our interaction with fellow Chris-
tians” (p. 14) should be decided and defined by the Council of Pres-
idents and the Board of Directors, saying, “Let them deal with
current topics to define how narrow or wide is the road we ‘walk
together’ (Synod) must be” (p. 14); and

WHEREAS, These divisions are also matters of doctrine, such as
the role of women in the church (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 3:11-12) or
the teaching of closed Communion (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; Titus
3:10-11); or these divisions are matters of conscience, due to the
fact that the Synod is greatly divided over these issues; and

WHEREAS, The Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod clearly states that “all matters of doctrine and of conscience
shall be decided only by the Word of God” (Art.. VIII C), which
means that the Word rather than the Council of Presidents and the
Board of Directors needs to decide these issues; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention reject this proposal
from the “Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for Funding the
Mission” (issued July 2006); and be it further

Resolved, That the Blue Ribbon Task Force be commended for
publicly calling attention to these serious doctrinal divisions in The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention authorize the semi-
naries of the Synod, as called instructors of God’s Word, and the
CTCR as the Synod’s commission that is intended to “provide
guidance to the Synod in matters of theology and church relations”
(Bylaw 3.9.6.2.1) to resolve from God’s Word the five divisions
previously stated in the task force’s report; and be it finally

Resolved, That the seminaries’ and CTCR’s resolution of these
issues be published in a subsequent issue of The Lutheran Witness
(the official periodical of the Synod) before the next Synod con-
vention.

Christ Lutheran Church, Sioux Falls, SD; Mt. Calvary,
Fullerton, NE; Brainerd Circuit 6, Minnesota North
District; Immanuel, Breemer, NE; Zion, Wisner, NE; Faith
In Christ, Portales, NM

To Reject Proposals of Funding the Mission Task Force

Preamble

The Blue Ribbon Task Force for Funding the Mission recently
released its report, as mandated by the 2004 LCMS convention.
The task force was given the task of not only recommending a new
funding model, but showing that the model it proposes is supported
by Holy Scripture. While we appreciate the difficulty of the task
set before it, the results have failed to achieve the objectives the
task force was given.

In its only extended reference to Scripture in the report, the task
force noted that “giving is about grace,” and “giving is motivated
by God’s gracious act in Jesus Christ,” yet it produced a funding
model that relies largely on the Law. In addition, claims are made
that have neither scriptural warrant nor support, including

¢ “Funding allocated to the education and motivation of our pastors and
laypeople in biblical stewardship will repay itself tenfold and more
in funding the mission.” (Where in Scripture does it say this?)

¢ “Tt is time to grow this Church.” (Compare to 1 Cor. 3:6: “I planted,
Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.”’)

* It is a disgrace to our faith and practice that we are losing member-
ship. (Compare to John 6:66: “From that time many of His [Jesus’]
disciples went back and walked with Him no more.”) ;

¢ “If some of the storytellers are ordained they could offer sermonic
proclamations that lift up the great work we are doing together in mis-
sions.” (Compare to 1 Cor. 2:2: “For I determined not to know any-
thing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”)

« “With the emergence of congregations in the 4,000- to 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 mis-
representation has significant funding implications.” (The report nei-
ther explains what the funding implications are, nor explains how
such a change is supported by Holy Scripture. This is also untrue—no
congregation gets two votes at a convention of the Synod—we have a
system of circuit delegates, which eases these discrepancies.)

¢ We recommend the 2007 convention support with appropriate bylaw
changes the current efforts to increase the number of regents and/or
advisors on our seminary and university boards through local ap-
pointments/elections. (How does this do anything except increase
travel expenses for board meetings, unless the task force assumes that
the new regents will be major donors, as well. Is the task force really
suggesting that we follow a secular model and sell seats on the boards
of regents of our seminaries? If so, they have offered no scriptural
support for giving such advantages to the wealthy in our Synod. “The
first shall be last and the last shall be first.”)

Beyond these unscriptural claims, the funding model presented
by the report is of coerced dollars. Corporate structures will be as-
sessed a percentage of their income (including Concordia Plans,
which would then be forced to pass the cost to pastors.) RSOs
would pay a yearly entry fee based on annual budget. Districts
would be assessed a certain amount. Congregations would either
pay based on membership or be denied access to the Synod’s ser-
vices.

The following Handbook sections speak to these recommenda-
tions:

* Regarding corporate structures (Bylaw 3.6.1): “The Synod in con-
vention has authorized the creation of corporate and legal entities that
are to be servants of and to the Synod and its members. Their pur-
pose, function, and assigned areas of responsibility are set forth in
these Bylaws.” (Notice that the corporate entities serve the Synod ac-
cording to specific purposes. None of these specific purposes include
fund-raising for or on behalf of the Synod. Rather, they assist the
Synod in carrying out its responsibilities and objectives. They already
exist for the benefit of the Synod. The report seems to imply they
draw benefit from affiance with the Synod, for which they should
pay, rather than the other way around.)

* Regarding RSOs (Bylaw 6.2.1): “The granting of recognized service
organization status by the Synod signifies that a service organization,