LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 165

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADMINISTRATION AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 165

the District and national ministries of the Synod; (3) national
and District priorities and special needs; (4) the percentage of
the District’s offerings to be used in the national program and
in the District for the coming calendar year and the subsequent
three years; (5) the method of communicating District and
national needs of the Synod to its congregations in the District
(e.g., circuit forums, congregational visits); and (6) agreement
on other concerns raised by District leaders.

The calendar of events in the guidelines proposed that by
March 31, 1982, each District president would advise the
Department of Stewardship and Financial Support in the
Synod’s national office of the District’s key budget-setting
people and a date on which the national leaders might meet
with them to discuss the goals of the sessions. By April 30 the
Synod’s President, in consultation with the District Presidents,
would name the people who would represent the national office
in each planning session. Prior to the planning session
national and District leaders would provide each other with
their respective program descriptions and budgets and indicate
which current programs were introduced, expanded, or reduced
and what the program needs would be for the following three
years. The responsible national and District officers were to
equip all members of the District and national teams to
particiate effectively in the meetings.

Evaluations of the planning sessions held during 1982, for
the 1983—84 budget revealed their value. Planning sessions for
the 1984—85 budget will build on the earlier successes.

In summary we can say of the planning sessions for the
1983-84 budget that both the ECC and theSynod’s Department
of Stewardship and Financial Support, were encouraged in
their work. The following observations about the meetings
were made by participants:

Positive

1. The reception was cordial and friendly. Participants evi-
denced a good spirit of “walking together” anda willingness
to listen, to communicate, and to share concerns.

2. Overall, evaluation forms from those participating were
positive. Many indicated surprise at the manner in which
the meetings were conducted. Comments also reflected that
prior to the meeting many District participants lacked a
clear understanding of its purpose and direction. After-
wards, most felt good about it and believed it represented
time well spent. While some said they learned nothing new,
they believed the meeting worthwhile and that it improved
the relationship between District and the Synod. All appreci-
ated the openness, willingness to change the agenda, and
the discussion format.

3A large majority of the attendees agreed that the general

Synod does require additional funding and everyone must
attempt to increase receipts from the Districts for 1983. The
lack of financial resources for seminary support and world
missions was of particular concern. A positive commitment
to increase District support for the Synod was evident—
although many made this contingent upon congregations
increasing receipts to the District. Some did disagree and
emphasized that the Synod should live within its resources
and, if necessary, reduce mission and ministry to avoid
deficit spending.

4, During the evaluation of synodical programs, participants
offered numerous ideas regarding synodical departments
and programs—particularly for the new Board for Com-
munication Services and the Department of Stewardship
and Financial Support.

5. Statistics were shared regarding Forward in Remembrance
results and cash collection for the District, with particular
mention made of the small percentage (usually less than
seven percent) of the total families within a District still
making payments on Forward in Remembrance pledges.

6. For many these meetings offered the first opportunity to
hear about the plans and programs being developed by the
new Department of Stewardship and Financial Support and
the Continuity and Plannng Study, which was conducted to
assist the new department.

Concerns

1. As indicated previously, some District leaders felt that the

meetings presented little new information or material—that
they had heard it all before.

2. The financial situation of Synod at the national level and

the large deficit of $11.8 million received much attention,
and questions were raised regarding its size, origin, and
repayment.

3. At most meetings questions were also raised regarding
construction of the new International Center, its cost,
rationale for construction, and efforts to raise funds.

4. Another major discussion topic dealt with the LCMS col-
leges. Some questioned whether they can continue to existin
their present form and whether members will send their
sons and daughters and/or provide financial support. The
purchase of a new campus for Concordia, Milwaukee, was
also questioned. ~

5. In a number of Districts leadership was concerned about
congregational receipts for 1982 as well as pledges for 1983.
New efforts are being attempted to increase pledges from
congregations while others are taking a wait-and-see atti-
tude. Districts have no uniform, concerted approach for
increasing receipts from congregations.

6. Ina number of Districts it was suggested that in the future
the meeting be split into two meetings—one with a large
audience to communicate and discuss plans and programs
of the Synod and the other with a smaller group of District
budget leaders to discuss the budgets of Districts and the
national Synod.

It was left to the discretion of District leadership as to who
should be invited to the meetings. The only guideline provided
was that those attending should be ‘decision makers’ —those
who actually review and establish the District work program.
In some Districts this is a staff function, in others the Board of
Directors or a fiscal committee does the work.

Attendance at the meetings, therefore, varied from three or
four to 30 or 40. Meetings lasted from two hours to eight hours.
The average length was four hours. Since the meetings were
primarily for information sharing, it is believed the most
productive and beneficial sessions were those attended by the
larger groups.

Representatives from the Synod who attended the District
meetings were Richard L. Engdahl, director, Department of
Stewardship and Financial Support; Dr. Norman D. Sell,
Treasurer; Dr. Victor A. Constien, executive secretary, Board
for Parish Services; Dr. Walter L. Rosin, executive secretary,
Board for Professional Education Services; Rev. Paul W.
Devantier, director, Board for Communication Servies; Dr.
Edward A. Westcott, Jr., executive secretary, Board for Mission
Services; and Rev. Vincent S. Larson, Jr., stewardship project
coordinator.

The somewhat different approach to the District/Synod
planning sessions during 1982 and the desire to have more ofa
discussion format transformed this entire program into a
process: a number of the objectives originally outlined by the
Executive Coordinating Committee will require more than one
year to attain. However, the first year did lay a foundation and
improved the “walking together” between District and the
Synod.

Attitudes were expressed that at times both District and the
Synod make too much of the “‘we/they syndrome.” Instead, all
leaders need to be up and about the Lord’s work in a positive
manner and implement God-pleasing programs that will serve
and strengthen congregations. This will alleviate, leadership }

i
|
i

stated, the ‘“we/ they” and build a much stronger Synod as the—

church body looks toward the year 2000.

(Tables showing the Districts’ preliminary 1983 pledges for
the Synod’s general work as well as District/Synod operating
income can be found in the report of the Department of
Stewardship and Financial Support.)

Role in the Synod’s Structure

The Synod’s Commission on Structure encouraged the
Executive Coordinating Committee to propose a formal role for
itself in the administrative structure of the Synod. However,
the members of the Executive Coordinating Committee ob-
served that the need and design for effective planning was
articulated in Resolution 12-07A of the Synod’s 1981 con-
vention. They saw no compelling need to convert this reso-