LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Sheet 371

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

362 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

today’s complex world of high technology was aptly demon-
strated by the recent energy blackouts in New York and lower
New England, and the OPEC oil embargo of the winter of
1973—74. The paradox of modern society is that the very
technology that provides the cornucopia of freedoms—
unlimited choice in consumption options, freedom of mobility,
freedom from abject poverty—chains us together in a common
dependence upon fragile strands of wire, hose, and pipe.

The church is a partner in this interdependent, complex
societal system. Like the larger society, the inexorable trend for
the church is, paradoxically, in the twin directions of more
“freedom” and less independence. If that phrase strikes a
familiar chord, that’s because it goes to the heart of the New
Testament messages. The redemptive act of Jesus Christ
“frees’’ us from the condemnation of the Law, but “‘constrains”
us to love, disciple, and serve others.

In terms of long-range planning, what are some implica-
tions? The choices each of us make in terms of funding,
staffing, and doing the mission impacts on everyone else’s
funding, staffing, and doing. Under such circumstances, “not
to plan” is to accept someone else’s plan, while ‘‘planning
independently” is to maximize certain aspects of the system to
the detriment of one or more other aspects, eventually leading
to significant “disfunction” of the whole. What we must
attempt within the church is to strengthen the function of each
part of the system in relation to every other function.

Toillustrate, consider the human body and think of the New
Testament analogy for the church. Each organ, cell, and tissue
is extremely sensitive to its internal and external environment.
Whenever environmental conditions exceed a relatively
narrow band of tolerances, the entire system reacts with
incredible speed in an attempt to bring the affected organ,
limb, etc., back to its optimum functional relationship with the
whole.

Unfortunately, the institutional church does not always act
in as unified a manner as the body. This is true for a number of
reasons. First, the human body is a system by design, which
God made and executed Himself. While God indeed established
His church, the implementation and administration of church
bodies have been based on human decisions. They have
become complex as relatively ad hoc responses to the present
need. Secondly, the way we usually attempt to understand
something is to “take it apart” and reduce it to irreducible
wholes. Such a theoretical framework dictates that one “com-
partmentalize” experience or “departmentalize” functions.
This virtually guarantees that “parts” will be known in detail,
but no one ever sees the whole. “You can’t see the forest for the
trees.” Then each addition, change, or deletion is considered
primarily on the basis of a relatively narrow view of its short-
term effects. Finally, partly due to its size, any complex
organization or institution resists change, especially rapid
change.

Under relatively stable environmental conditions such
slow-reacting, disjointed organizations could probably survive,
even grow, over the long term. But the environment—internal
and external—is not stable. In fact, the pace of change has
increased geometrically in recent decades.

Under such environmental conditions anticipating the next
move is as much of a challenge as managing it. The era when
any institution, including the church, could “muddle through”
has passed.

Aware of the challenge, we must now remind each other
that God has given the Synod the resources to meet the
challenge. He has promised us His Holy Spirit, toempower and
sanctify. We have the Good News of forgiveness for which there
is an ever-present need. We have a dedicated, skilled leadership
throughout the church. We have a vast, educated, affluent
skilled, largely untapped laity. We have a higher education
system which is the envy of many other church bodies. Finally,
and perhaps most important, we are not like every other
bureaucreacy, organization, or group. What ties us together as
the body of Christis not merely acommon purpose, an ethnic or
racial identity, or socioeconomic class, but the living, loving
Jesus Christ Himself. Because of His life-giving act of reconcil-
iation, sealed by His resurrection, we live in Him and with one
another as brothers and sisters.

Because of that unity, we also tend to disagree more on
methodology than on the goals for which we strive. In our

struggle to deal with organizational matters—how boards,
Synod, Districts, colleges and seminaries, and congregations
should work together—we tend to obscure the very personal
nature of our redemption, and the fact that even our beloved
Synod and its agencies are only tools, fashioned under human
rationale, to fulfill a God-given mission. What the institutional
church strives to dois to make itself, under God’s guidance, the
best and most appropriate tool it possibly can be.

What we must guard against is the confusion of the design
and function of the tool with the mission itself. If one attempts
to use a screwdriver when the task requires a pliers, two things
may happen: (1) the task will not be accomplished, and (2) the
attempt may result in self-inflicted injury.

The Executive Planning Group was charged with setting
out long-range objectives designed, after considerable prayer,
study, and reflection, to guide us along the fulfillment of our
ultimate mission: that people of all ages everywhere be joined
by faith in Christ as disciples of our Lord.

IV. Keeping the Master Plan Current

Planning is not a bound document which an organization
slavishly follows or patently ignores. It is rather a process,
attitude, or mind-set. It examines where an organization is,
how it got there, and how it will get to a particular point (goal)
at some preselected time in the future.

Some plans are quite cetailed, following precise, complex
statistical procedures. Others are almost vague in the sense
that they lack mathematical precision. They are designed to
make decision makers think in broad conceptual terms.

Most plans are “hybrids” in that short-term (1~3 years)
objectives are relatively specific, while the longer-term (5 to 10
or more years) goals are benchmarks against which to measure
progress and guide the development of the short-term
objectives.

Another factor which largely determines the degree of
precision in a given plan is the subject of the planning. In
general, manufacturing, product-based planning can be
extremely precise—down to the number of units produced per
day over a specified time frame. The less product-oriented the
plan, the less precision one can expect in the plan itself andin
the accuracy of the long-term outcomes or targets.

The most perilous of projections today are those relating to
future fertility. The total number of annual births and the
average annual rate at which all women give birth are simply
aggregations of literally millions of individual decisions,
determined by personal and societal attitudes, economic condi-
tions, and other factors which are not projectable for any
considerable time frame with very great precision. Since the
church in North America is primarily a voluntary organiza-
tion, changes in membership affiliation, the degree of involve-
ment, including personal financial contributions, and commit-
ment to the church’s purpose are matters of individual,
personal decision making.

Some would say that because we must rely on less precise
planning than, say, the manufacturer of church pews, we
really shouldn’t bother. However, it is precisely because we
lack a precise view of the future and are caught up in the rapid
pace of change that planning is even more necessary than it
was in the past. Such conditions also make the continuous
planning process mandatory. Rather than obviate the need for
planning, rapid change requires more frequent review and
revision, and less restrictive or prescriptive planning.

For this reason the EPG recommends to the Synod the
following process for annual review and adaptation of the
proposed master plan.

The process is built on these assumptions:

1. The Synod, its Districts, and congregations will engage
in an ongoing planning process administered by a coordinat-
ing and planning group, consisting of the Synod’s Board of
Directors, Council of Presidents, and Council of Adminis-
trators.

2. Facilitating the work of the above-named group will bea
Planning/Coordinating Committee consisting of three District
Presidents, three executives from the Synod’s major boards
represented on the Synod’s Council of Administrators, three
Board of Directors members, and the Synod’s President. (Total:
10 members)