LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 40

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2. TASK FORCE II

2-01

Report of Task Force II
on Constitution, Bylaws, and Structure

I. Introduction

It is a frequently stated truth that we have an unchanging
Christ in a changing world. We in The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod have traditionally been very secure in our
church because we have faith in this unchanging Savior, who
by His grace provides guidance and direction through the true
Word revealed in Scripture and set forth in the timeless nature
of our Confessions.

There is, however, a developing sense and concern that
parts of the organizational structure of our church’s servant/
service relationship tend to be unresponsive or somewhat
removed from our church’s general membership. This sense of
lost ownership is perhaps symptomatic of a general outlook
that produces a desire on the part of people to participate in and
havea voice in those organizations that are important to them
and/or affect their lives.

Weare one of the larger American church bodies. Long gone
are the days when The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod was
a small collection of Circuits and congregations who received
the mandated yearly visit from the synodical President.
Clearly this was one of those early administrative procedures
that is simply unrealistic when applied to a body of 6,000
congregations and 2.8 million members. This is not to infer
that they were not desirable or effective in carrying out the
mission our church then set for itself. But the question must be
asked, “How can a church with such great spiritual resources
and financial assets of over one billon dollars manage itself
today and prepare today for its future growth?”

The most common and frequent relationship by our congre-
gations foday is with Districts or that part of the Synod nearest
them (even in this relationship, there is some concern that it is
too far removed from “the people” to become completely
responsive). Because the organization of our Districts is clearly
defined, with many of them having well-reviewed organiza-
tional charts, the natural assumption is that the Synod must
share a commonality with a similarly defined and clear
statement of accountability, responsibility, and structure.
Simply stated, this is not the case.

For those who manage resources of time, money, or people,
it is understood that effectiveness is a result of a conscious
effort. Good organization doesn’t simply happen: itis planned.
Organizational expertise, like any other discipline, requires
study, practice, and experience. The proper stewardship of the
resources of our church demand utilization through good
organization.

There are two aspects of stewardship. One is growth in the
grace of giving and the sharing of time, treasure, and talent
with the bringing of “firstfruits.” Equally important and
Scripturally directed, as in the parable of the servant and the
talents, is the effective utilization of these truly God-given
resources. Here the emphasis is not on giving but on using.

The mustering of people and resources will be a task of
gigantic proportions as we face the “challenge for the ’80s” in
mission and ministry. It will require good planning, good
management, and good organization. Therefore, there is a
special obligation to respond to God’s grace and the out-
pourings of His people with clarity of thought and effective
action. We must address these concerns and objectives in
several ways.

It is commonly observed that church bodies successful in
mission are those that encourage the free-will participation,
support, and cooperation of their members in the basic organi-
zational unit (the congregation) and encourage their working
together with nearby congregations in a circuit-type structure.

If the people of the LCMS are to have continued ownership,
input, and voice in their Synod, the Circuit structure so near to
them and governed by them can provide this forum. It is the
structure that can provide a basis for participatory organiza-
tion with vitality and effectiveness.

41

In addition to this, there is a responsibility for those who are
entrusted with the management of the resources of our church
to stand clearly accountable for their management of time,
talent, and treasure. If we fail to provide clear direction, we
complicate and hinder the effective management of our Synod.
To this end one of the important ingredients in assuring thata
task is performed effectively and correctly is to assure that
proper direction is given.

II. Procedures and Studies in the Past

Attempts at reorganization and the study of synodical
structure are not new. In a church body which seeks to fulfill
the mandate and mission of our Lord in the most effective and
efficient way, it is expected that changes in structure and
organization will take place constantly. Our Lord never
changes, and the Word of God never changes. But the way in
which the church organizes to carry out the Lord’s work will
constantly change, in keeping with the changing world in
which we serve, as well as changing opportunities and
resources.

Almost every convention of the Synod has made some
changes in the Bylaws of the Synod—changes designed to
meet new challenges and needs in the church and to correct
areas of weakness. In recent history, the 1956 convention of the
Synod established a survey committee, which functioned until
1962. Some changes resulted, including the establishment of a
divisional structure, a Council of Administrators, amalgama-
tion of some boards, etc.

In 1969 another “(Committee on Organization” was estab-
lished at the Denver convention, with a continuation of the
committee mandated at the 1971 convention. In its report to the
New Orleans convention in 1973, this committee drew atten-
tion to two areas of need in particular: (1) “the vertical
relationship of the responsibilities and the accountabilities of
the boards and commissions of the Synod; and (2) the hori-
zontal relationships of cooperation and coordination between
all synodical boards and commissions.”

In response, the 1973 convention called for the appointment
of a new committee on reorganization, with one of its assign-
ments being a study of the makeup, function, and relationships
of various boards and commissions.

The Committee for Reorganization did extensive study and
laid much important groundwork. Res. 5-01A, adopted at
Anaheim in 1975, recognized that the task assigned to the
committee was extremely broad and that the Committee for
Reorganization had not been able to complete its work during
the biennium. The same resolution said that “the piecemeal
amending of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod without
a thorough study of the polity of our church will further confuse
the entire matter of government in the Synod.” Thus in 1975
the Synod established ‘‘a task force to study and propose
revisions of the Constitution, Bylaws, and the entire organiza-
tional structure of the Synod and its Districts.” Res. 5-O1A
directed the Task Force to “preserve the congregational polity
of church government which has served our Synod in its
history and avoid the centralization of power within the
synodical structure.” It also called for a report to the Synod
prior to and at the 1979 convention. The assignment to this
Task Force called for the most comprehensive and far-reaching
study on reorganization which had been undertaken to date.

Task Force I made a progress report to the 1977 convention
and then issued its proposals in a document entitled “In Faith
in Mission” and presented it to the congregations of the Synod
for study prior to the 1979 convention. The convention
approved the recommended changes to Article III of the
Constitution (Objectives) by the necessary two-thirds vote. The
convention also adopted changes in the Bylaws prescribing
the role and relationships of auxiliaries and listed service
organizations. Also adopted was Res. 2-12, amending the
Constitution of the Synod regarding the duties of the Treasurer
in Article XI, E. In other constitutional actions, the 1979
convention declined changes in Articles V, VII, and XIV of the
Constitution. Proposed changes in Article XIII (Expulsion
from the Synod) were referred to a continuing task force.