LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 42

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

42 TASK FORCE

The present Task Force II was mandated and given direc-
tion by Res. 2-04A of the 1979 St. Louis convention. Its basic
charge was to continue the assignment of the Task Force on
Constitution, Bylaws, and Structure and specifically to:

1) study and review the frequency of conventions and their
effect;

2) study possible alternatives to the assembly concept;

3) determine the number of boards and committees required

to perform the Synod’s business;

define (a) the roles (functions and responsibilities) of the

boards and their executives, the Board of Directors, the

President, the convention, and any other existing or

proposed decision-making groups and (b) the relation-

ships between and among these several entities;

develop a plan of implementation and schedule to phase

in any new structural components with a minimum of

disruption;

facilitate and encourage the widest possible considera-

tion by and response from congregations, Circuits, and

Districts of the Task Force study;

report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to

the convention in 1981.

4

io]
=

a

~I]

Task Force II Membership

As specified by the 1979 convention, three members were
elected from the former Task Force on Constitution, Bylaws,
and Structure; two were selected by the floor committee which
made convention recommendations based on the previous task
force’s work; and three were appointed by President J. A. O.
Preus. The ninth member was Dr. Herbert Mueller, Secretary of
the Synod. Mr. John Schuelke, Administrative Officer of the
Synod’s Board of Directors, served in an advisory capacity.

The members of Task Force II are:

Mr. Kermit A. Brashear II, Omaha, Nebr., a lawyer;

Mr. John L. Daniel, Emmaus, Pa., an executive of Allen
Organ Co.:;

Mr. Gilbert R. Heine, Seward, Nebr., dean of development
affairs at Concordia Teachers College;

Rev. Richard T. Hinz, Washington, D.C., president of the
Southeastern District;

Mr. Clifford A. Kraft, Exton, Pa., president of Executive
Consulting Services;

Dr. August T. Mennicke, Brainerd, Minn., president of the
Minnesota North District;

Dr. Herbert Mueller, St. Louis, Mo., Secretary of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod;

Dr. Milton Nauss, St. Louis, Mo., pastor of Chapel of the
Cross-Lutheran;

Dr. Paul A. Zimmerman, River Forest, IIl., president of
Concordia College.

At its organization meeting on Sept. 15, 1979, Task Force II
members, by secret ballot, selected the following officers: Dr.
Herbert Mueller, chairman; Mr. Gilbert Heine, vice-chairman;
and Mr. Kermit Brashear II, secretary.

Rev. Everett G. Grese served as coordinator of the Task
Force through March 1980. At that time he accepted the call as
pastor of Zion Lutheran Church, Litchfield, I]. Since that time
Dr. Arthur M. Ahlschwede has served as coordinator on a
part-time basis.

Task Force II met at least once every month during the
biennium in a two- or three-day session. Although the Task
Force members had many other duties, they were faithful in
attending meetings. They also devoted their energies to the
responsibility between meetings by carrying out individual
assignments. All recommendations offered by individuals in
response to progress reports in the Lutheran Witness and
Reporter were fully considered.

In addition to responding to the 1979 synodical convention
Res. 2-04A, Task Force II was determined to faithfully repre-
sent the membership of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod in recommending changes involving Constitution,
Bylaws, and structure.

Members of Task Force II responded to invitations to meet
with pastoral conferences, lay conferences, District conven-
tions, District Circuit Counselors meetings, as well as smaller
synodical groups. The members attended meetings in almost
all of the 38 Districts of the Synod. Meetings were held with the

chairmen and executive officers of all synodical boards and
commissions involved. Also, a regular two-way communica-
tion was maintained with the Board of Directors, Council of
Presidents, and the Council of Administrators.

The Circuit Counselors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod were most helpful to Task Force II by enabling it to
secure “grassroots” responses from the constituency. Repre-
sentatives of the Task Force met with a majority of all Circuit
Counselors over the course of a year. A 4-page, 18-item
professionally developed survey was prepared for presentation
at the 1980 fall Circuit meetings. Circuit Counselors presented
this information to congregational leaders, who took the time
to carefully consider and respond to the survey. In addition to
the grassroots involvement, questionnaires were shared
specifically with District Presidents and executive secretaries,
college and seminary presidents, and chairmen and executive
secretaries of synodical boards and commissions, all of whom
were most cooperative in responding to the survey.

The response by the church at large far exceeded that
expected by the Task Force and gave strong encouragement
that the recommendations were in the right direction. The
Task Force received 5,002 responses to the survey question-
naires from 363 Circuits in 38 Districts.

The respondents were grouped as follows:

Circuit Counselors .................00000- 363
Pastors 0.00... ccc ce eee eee 2,040
Lay delegates ............... 0. cc cece ees 2,445
Presidents, chairmen, execs............... 79
Others 0.0.0.0... ccc cece eee 7d

To obtain maximum objectivity, the responses were
tabulated by the data processing division of Michigan State
University under the direction of Dr. William H. Schmidt.
Results on question 18 of the survey questionnaires from the
fall Circuit meetings were as follows:

18. In general are you satisfied with the recommenda-
tions of the Task Force?

74% Yes 26% No

The results on the same question from District, college, and
seminary presidents, board chairmen, and executives were as

follows:

18. In general are you satisfied with the recommenda-
tions of the Task Force?

85% Yes 15% No

A copy of the survey questionnaire can be found as an
appendix to this report.

III. Congregational Polity and Centralization

The 1975 Anaheim convention resolved in 5-01A, “That the
task force preserve the congregational polity of church govern-
ment which has served our Synod in its history and avoid the
centralization of power within the synodical structure.” Task
Force II has been ever mindful of these two fundamental
directives and has endeavored to remain faithful to the
mandate.

A. Congregational Polity

Every effort has been made, not only to retain the basic
congregational polity of the Synod, but to strengthen it.

One of the first determinations of Task Force II was that the
basic rights and functions of the synodical and District
conventions should not be changed, but that the grassroots
should continue to have all of the authority within the Synod
that it has always had.

Furthermore, by proposing that the scope of the franchise
within the congregation be expanded, Task Force II has
attempted to eliminate perceived inequities regarding qualifi-
cations for delegates to synodical and District conventions.
Task Force II believes a congregation should be free not only to
call its own pastor but also through the election process to
select any one of its members as its second delegate and
consequently be free to decide who shall be its two representa-
tives at a convention.

Task Force II has also focused major attention on the
Circuit, not so much in an effort to shore up the administrative