# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S30 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 30 MISSIONS D. New congregations need to be established in areas of population growth and expansion of the mission and ministry of Christ as listed in A and B above. 2. That an office of interchurch relations, directly accountable to the President of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, be established, carrying out in his behalf his responsibilities for sister church relationships, with liaison with the Board for Missions and the Commission on Theology and Church Rela- tions. 3. That the Board for Missions shall consist of nine members, three members to be assigned to each of the key function areas. Domestic Affairs, Mission fields, and Administrative Services, as their areas of special concern and as a subcommittee. 4. That some experimentation with new modes of Staffing be initiated, consistent with program goals and objectives, as Proposed by the new organization chart. The fundamental structure here Proposed makes the Synod in convention responsible, as in the past, for review of programs, reports, and action on memorials. At the next level of account- ability in the administrative structure is the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. The Board for Mis- sions, though elected by the synodical convention, will be ac- countable to the Board of Directors. Should the Board for Missions find itself in disagreement with action required by the Board of Directors taken on a matter of importance to it, the Board for Missions would have the right of appeal to the next convention of the Synod. The Executive Director, whose duties are primarily administrative, will function under the Board for Missions, carrying out policy as decided by the Board for Mis- sions. Policy making and evaluation are considered to be the functions of the Board for Missions, but administrative details belong in the realm of responsibility of the Executive Director. Under the direction of the Executive Director the Mission Study Commission recommends in skeletal fashion three major areas: Domestic Affairs, Missions Fields, and Administrative Services. A special relationship category is envisioned for the office of interchurch relations, as proposed in Recommenda- tion 2, Special ministries, in the process of transition to the District level, will need some coordination for the time being under the area of Domestic Affairs. The Director of Administrative Ser- vices shall have responsibilities for personnel, liaison, and re- search. Staffing at every level needs to be effected in terms of new Opportunities with which the Lord confronts the church. 5. That major efforts on the part of board and staff to come to consensus regarding goals, objectives, and policies be under- taken, so that implementation of the mission mandate might follow without undue delay. 6. That careful attention be given to objectives and functions to be effected, that program objectives and position descriptions are given careful review before staff positions are established and filled, and that job descriptions of mission staff members reflect the restructuring of responsibilities under the recom- mended organizational structure, with clarity to enable evalua- tion of performance against description. 7. Board/staff/field relations and organization, always under the shadow of the Cross, should reflect the best of plans and support in the ministry to all of God’s children and to the total needs of every man, and that board and staff of Missions — a. revise the board/staff relationship document of July 1972; b. Implement the Board of Directors recommendations related thereto: ¢. support the reaffirmation of New Orleans Resolution 1-06 as guidelines for more effective working relationships. 8. That the Handbook of the Synod should be amended to contain clear statements regarding the relationship of the Board for Missions, the Board of Directors, the President of the Synod, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and sister churches as they involve responsibility, authority, and ac- countability, and that the responsibility of the Board for Missions for policy in relation to new missions and domestic matters be clearly defined, as reflected by Recommendation 3. 9. That beyond approving the Mission Affirmations, reviewed by several conventions and more recently strengthened by the CTCR document, “The Mission of the Christian Church in the World,”’ they no longer be debated but be used to implement new efforts in missions. 10. That continued development of planning, accountability, and evaluation as found in the PPBS, and in such approaches as the ‘‘Weighting of Subministries” as developed by the LCA, as a way of effecting a larger measure of stewardship in future programs and budgets, be pursued. 11. That financial and accounting functions now handled by Board for Missions staff be transferred to the office of the Con- troller or Treasurer of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. 12. That special ministries be assessed and evaluated on a cost and potential basis within the general principles and priorities established by the Board for Missions. 13. That Districts should continue fashioning and implement- ing approaches to mission utilizing their unique resources, consistent with the policy and the goals of the Synod. Districts should participate with the Board for Missions in consolidated priority setting. 14. That District mission executives become more active in their role as resources to existing congregations and in estab- lishing new ones, urging them to employ methods of mission intensification and expansion consistent with the principles enumerated in “Board for Mission Goals 1973-1975,” which encourages laity and clergy to be the missionaries God has made them, in both the planning and the doing of the mission. 15. That members of the steering committee elected by the District mission executives in their annual conference should be asked to advise and consult with the Board for Missions on North American mission matters, further establishing the com- munication links in three directions: (a) from Districts to the Synod; (b) from the Synod to Districts: (c) from Districts to Districts. 16. That a specific percentage of each budget dollar allocated to missions be set aside by the Board for Missions for what corporations call research and development, with emphasis on new and experimental methods in mission and ministry and on new areas of service. 17. That a more representative membership on the Board for Missions be established, e.g., comprising a divergence of cultural and geographic backgrounds and designed to pro- vide for representation of these competencies and diversities on the Board for Missions, preferably of demonstrated experi- ence, after having first served on a District Board for Missions. 18. That criteria and standards be developed for determining sister church status by the special committee to which this task has been assigned, and for maintaining sister church relation- ships under the office of interchurch relations and that these matters be incorporated into the program for consideration and discussion at the International Lutheran Theological Convoca- tion in November 1975. 19. That careful attention be given by the office of interchurch relations to the documents drawn up and now in force in the ALC, agreements between sister churches, as new vehicles to effect mutual mission responsibilities, with implementation on an experimental basis to commence in the present biennium. 20. That in order to establish a more personal involvement at the congregational and District level, the Board of Directors in consultation with the Board for Missions and with other coordinating units establish a diversity of models and varied methods of Support, interchange, and interfacing with the mission areas and sister churches and that such a program of development and implementation be reported to the next con- vention of the Synod. 21. That closer working relationships between auxiliary agencies and the Board for Missions should be established to Maximize resource utilization in God’s mission. 22. That the development of geographic groupings of sister churches into voluntarily formed consortia, e. g., the churches of Asia or of Europe, of Africa, of Latin America, assuming a larger obligation of mutual support and mutual development of priorities and Programs, be undertaken. In effect this would create regionalization of concerns rather than many ad hoc entities whose priorities currently are most difficult to evaluate on a comparative basis. These groupings would be primarily programatic.