LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 127

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

{

j

f

i

ADMINISTRATION AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

church by the priesthood, but it has a different connotation in
American legal language. Only in those instances in which
congregations are entirely independent, without any associa-
tions and associational commitments, can a congregation
under the present legal definition be regarded as having a
purely congregational form of government; any agreement to
“walk together,” instead of insisting upon exercising at all
times its own freedom in its teachings and actions, already
indicates that under legal definition that congregation belongs
to an association which has a “hierarchical” dimension.

This terminology may be unfortunate, but it is a fact of life
which we will need to live with until case law finally recognizes
that there are many different kinds of church polity (including
synodical) instead of just two: strictly congregational and
hierarchical.

* * *

Busy days! Busy years! But an offering “far too small” for
Him who gave His all!

Herbert Mueller, Secretary

4-04
Report of Treasurer

The activities of the office of Treasurer are indirectly
included in the reports of all other boards, commissions, and
agencies. The Treasurer serves as a nonvoting member of the
Synod’s Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Man-
agers, a director and treasurer of the Lutheran Church Exten-
sion Fund, and as a trustee and trust officer for The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod Foundation. The Treasurer’s office
administers the accounting and financial needs of all of the
aforementioned entities; therefore a major segment of time is
given to attending meetings, preparing reports, planning
strategies and objectives to meet the challenges and oppor-
tunities of the Synod’s various boards, commissions, and
agencies.

The work of our Synod is far more involved and complex
than many people realize, primarily because the Synod has

__seen fit to establish more than 50 separate corporations for

administrative convenience. Unfortunately, clear lines of
authority and responsibility of each of these corporations to
the Synod as a whole and to each other are lacking. Such lack
of clarity prevents the Synod from being as dynamic an
organization as it could be and causes a certain amount of
duplication of effort and great frustration in the planning
process. While clarity of accountability and relationships
‘would be very helpful, more helpful would be for the Synod to
develop a refined system of allocating the resources God’s
people place on the altars of the congregations of the Synod for

~~...the mission endeavors to which we all subscribe. Over the

years numerous meetings have been held to discuss this
matter, but little has been accomplished because the total
resources made available beyond the local congregation have
not increased at a rate which is adequate to even cover the rate
of inflation, let alone expansion, so that an increase in funding
one segment of Synod’s program generally means a reduction
in some other segment. Since most program costs relate to
personnel compensation, changes of this type are slow in
coming and difficult to agree upon.

Deficits

Many in the Synod are aware of the large current operating
deficit of the Synod which totaled $11.8 million as of June 30,
1982. Subsequent to that, drastic reductions have been madein
the 1982—83 spending budget in an attempt to balance the
current year’s budget. The $11.8 million operating deficit is
exclusive of deficits at our colleges and seminaries and of the
results of operations in the 38 Districts. In addition capital debt
for the seminaries, colleges, Districts, or the new International
Center is not included. Of the $11.8 million deficit, $2,859,000 is
the result of changing the fiscal year from January 31 toJune
30 and $1,744,000 is the result of various accounting changes—
proper recording of liability for missions and higher education
subsidies—mandated by new accounting standards for not-for-

127

profit religious organizations. It should be stated that neither
of the foregoing has had any effect on the cash flow needs of the
Synod, but simply present the condition of the current operat-
ing fund as of the date of the audit report—June 30th.

The change in the fiscal year from January 31 to June 30
has resulted in numerous difficulties in comparing informa-
tion. All colleges and seminaries are on the same fiscal year as
the Synod, while the Districts continue to use the January 15
date of closing as their fiscal year. All other activities of the
Synod use the June 30 year except for Concordia Plans which
has continued the calendar year system, since their primary
relationships are to congregations and their activities do not
directly affect the other program functions of the Synod. There
is no desire tochange the fiscal year of Districts as the original
objective was to allow more time to deal with the reality of
decisions made in 38 Districts for the distribution of the
“mission” dollars pledged by congregations.

In the past convention actions have mandated deficit
spending at the national level in spite of the pleas of the Board
of Directors that such activity must stop. The Synod must find
a new way of providing resources for its programs and
planning the activities of more than 50 separate corporations
in a more coordinated manner or financial chaos will result.
Deficit spending must not continue on any level of the Synod,
irrespective of the desirability of programs which may need to
be reduced or curtailed to balance the budget. The utilization of
FIR funds on an interest-free basis will not be possible in the
near future, as FIR dollars will be expended for the purposes
outlined in the Statement of Mission and Ministry. Borrowing
from outside sources for operating needs is not practical.
Following this report, the 1982 audit is included to present the
financial situation of the national programs of the Synod and
to share, in as condensed a form as possible, the complexity of
the work that is performed. Elsewhere in the Workbook you will
find detailed receipt information by District, the results of
special efforts and funding the mission of the Synod at the
national level.

Financing

In the judgment of many the current financing of mission
and ministry within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, its
seminaries, colleges, and Districts has become a maze. It was
not planned that way, but that has been the result; at least that
is the result that the recording of the events of the past shows.

Efforts are underway to attempt to consolidate the income
and expenditure reports for the programs of the Synod at the
national and District level along with colleges and seminaries.
The results of such preliminary efforts identifies total non-
duplicated spending in excess of $115 million. Congregational
budgets currently provide nearly $60 million for this work. The
decision for distributing this amount, however, is made by 38
separate actions of District boards of directors without specific
criteria or knowledge of the impact of each of those decisions on
the other programs of the Synod. The result is that reactive

planning—which is really no planning at all—has been the ,

best that could be done under the circumstances. This is not to
fault the actions of the individual District decisions on the
sharing of resources made available at that level, but simply to
state the fact of life that changes must be made if we are to be
responsible stewards of mission and ministry programs
throughout the U.S. and abroad. Many opportunities have
been presented to the Synod, but additional resources will be
required if these opportunities are to be addressed. New
programs of stewardship and financial support are getting
underway, and great hope is held out for these, but by the same
token every effort must be made to plan and execute all

programs in an efficient and effective manner. Our people _-

depend on us to do this on their behalf and we must develop a
coordinated response which exemplifies a proper stewardship
example.

The financing problem for the programs conducted at the
national level of the Synod has become so severe that either
these programs must be presented directly to the congregations
and the membership or the Synod in convention must resolve

that a certain percentage of funds available for current opera- |
tions be allocated for the national programs and that Districts !
i

Lo

\

{