LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1992, Page 127

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

PROGRAM AND FINANCE 127

* networking the Districts to share resources across
Districts, minimize duplication among Districts,
and help Districts learn from each other.

8. For Districts to know congregations on an individual
basis and to network among congregations to meet
mutual needs.

Mission and Ministry Council

The 1989 convention i in Res. 8-02A asked congregations,
Districts and national staffs, boards, and commissions fo
coordinate their planning and decision making with em-
phasis on vision, networking, and compatible relation-
ships. The creation of the Planning Council (Bylaw 3. 731)
was an attempt to do this. Experience has shown that the
large Planning Council (219 attended the 1991 meeting),
although an effective vehicle for brainstorming about
meeting changes and developing vision, was too large and
not an effective forum for planning. Also, some of its stated

responsibilities appear to duplicate those of the Board of :

Directors. Both the Board of Directors and Commission on
Structure believe that a smaller, integrative Mission and
Ministry Council is desirable. Such a counci! must include
national members, (pastors, other professional church
workers, and laity generally elected by conventions) as well
as members of boards most affected by the decisions. It is
important that these people agree on synodwide vision and
how it is to be implemented. Such a structure decentralizes
power by involving more people in the decision-making
process, including the allocation of funds made available
by congregations and Districts. Individual boards must
have a high degree of autonomy within their limited areas
of responsibility but must also integrate their operations
with others through the council toward achieving a com-
mon vision, and they should be held accountable for their
programs and services to the council between conventions.

To meet these objectives for a more integrative struc-
ture, the Board of Directors and Commission on Structure
propose the following refinements to the current structure:

1. Reduce the size of the present 200-plus member Plan-
ning Council, rename it the Mission and Ministry Council,
and limit it to the 4 full-time elected officers, 13 nationally
elected members, who along with the full-time elected of
ficers would also serve as the Board of Directors of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Inc., the 9 chairmen
of the operating boards, 2 additional members from the
Board for Congregational Services, and 2 District Presi-
dents to be elected by the Council of Presidents. These 30
voting members, plus the principal executives of the Board
of Directors, each operating board, the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations, Concordia Historical Insti-
tute, Commission on Black Ministry, and Vice- Presidents
2 through 5 as advisory members, will have responsibility
for integrating the respective plans of the officers and op-
erating boards and proposing to the convention a single
visionary long-range, strategic mission and ministry plan
for the Synod, as well as its implications for the next trien-
nium. The council would have responsibilities regarding
the implementation of the plans. The Council would agree
on broad budget priorities for the corporate entity of the
Synod and on common policies for the respective operating
units, functions of the present Board of Directors. |

2. Refine the Council of Administrators to be a collegium
of the elected officers and the principal executive of each
operating board to meet on a regular basis to coordinate
the administration of the Synod at the national level.

In addition to providing a more efficient and effective
way to cooperate and integrate the national work of the
Synod, this proposal will result in cost reductions. Actual
costs charged to the Planning Council unrestricted and
restricted budget in the 1990/91 fiscal year totaled
$309,000. The 1991/92 budget was reduced to $136,000
and provided only limited staff services and a meeting of
only part of the Council members held in conjunction with
the convention floor committees. In contrast, the proposed

‘Mission and Ministry Council would add only an estimated

$20,000 to the current Board of Directors budget, a net
savings of $116,000.
Conference of Congregational Services

The concept of a more closely aligned congregational
ministries unit has been under consideration for years.
Already in 1959 the San Francisco convention considered
a division of congregational ministries embracing those
units providing congregations of the Synod with advisory
services and technical aids.

In 1981, Task Force I] had proposed the formation of a
Board for Congregational Services to include the units in-
volving parish education, youth, evangelism, and worship.
Since that time, Commissions on Structure have consis-
tently proposed similar action.

In 1988, the participants at the Planning Council sur-

faced the question of whether‘or not the various synodical
congregational services boards and commissions should in

" some way be combined to form a Board for Congregational

Services to render services to the congregations in the
areas of witness, worship, nurture, service, and fellowship.
At the 1989 Planning Council, when small table groups
discussed the issues and responded to a question as to how
boards which primarily work in support of congregations
should be structured, more than three-fourths of the tables
felt some kind of combination was in order.

In view of the long history of concern for developing an
effective structure to serve the congregations of the Synod,
the recommendation to bring certain boards and commis-
sions into a Conference of Congregational Services should
not be surprising. It is clear, however, that such a confer-
ence must include provision for maintaining the unique
functional emphasis of each of the boards and commis-
sions. It is based on considerable input from throughout
the Synod. It does not incorporate radical changes but is,
rather, a rearrangement for organizational effectiveness
to meet current and future needs of the Synod within polity
outlined in ‘its Constitution.

The “valued elements” previously listed, as well as other
information in the Colarelli-Meyer Report, reflect that the
world and, therefore, the congregations of the Synod have
experienced rapid change during the decade of the ’80s.
While standing firm in their doctrine and theological heri-
tage, congregations are adapting their practices more and
more to meet the unique opportunities in their local min-
istries. Congregations increasingly desire personal con-
tacts and services from Districts and a variety of materials