LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 161

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE

Congregations Walking Together in Mission
and Served by a Flexible National Office
To Realign the National Synod Ministries
around Two Mission Boards
RESOLUTION 8-08A
TF Report (CW TFR, pp. 39–44); Overtures 8-67–73,
8-81 (CW, pp. 243–246, 248)
Preamble

The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and
Governance (BRTFSSG) in its early work during 2005–06
asked church leaders what in the current Synod structure is
“broken .” Among the many answers (some of which are enumerated in the “Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Synod Structure and Governance” on page 2) were concerns
that the structure of the national Synod has evolved over the
years into a complex and inefficient system that is perceived
as unresponsive to the needs of the congregations .
Certain mission and ministry emphases, programs, and services provided by the national office (often required by the
Synod’s Bylaws) are redundant in light of programs and services offered by others at the national and/or district levels,
or by a variety of the Synod’s recognized service organizations (RSOs), parachurch organizations, and others . Other
programs and services may be completely unnecessary . In
either case, the result is poor stewardship of human and fiscal resources . Congregational involvement in national office
goals is not always direct or clear . The current program board
and commission structure lacks accountability and is expensive to fund . At the 2007 national convention, the Synod’s
Treasurer warned that the national structure could no longer
be fiscally supported . In this past triennium the national office
staff has been significantly reduced, salary increases have been
set aside, a voluntary retirement incentive was put in place, and
still the financial reserves of the Synod have been depleted .
Seven program boards and six commissions—most with
staff—carry out independent responsibilities as dictated by
the Synod’s Bylaws . Over the years, conventions have modified board and commission responsibilities . This has helped
to make boards and commissions accountable to the national
convention but not to one another . The effect today is that the
national office operates to some extent as a series of “silos .”
Though the boards and commissions and their staffs have
worked hard to coordinate their work, particularly in recent
years, the current framework of structure and governance
lacks accountability to the express current dictates and needs
of the Synod’s congregations . Finally, the “siloed” setup of
the boards and commissions creates complications in business oversight and legal compliance . The current operational
structure of the Synod’s boards and commissions and the
relationship of staff coordination and accountability begs for
improvement .
The BRTFSSG has studied and reviewed the structure of
the Synod and sought to develop principles and structures that

161

enhance the ability of the Synod to carry out mission and ministry tasks that Christ has given to His church . “Mission” is the
work Christ has given His church, and “ministry” is how His
church does that mission . Thus, BRTFSSG recommendation
#18 seeks to sharpen the Synod’s focus on mission and ministry in ways that help us remember who we are and what we
are as we walk forward together in response to Christ’s call .
So that we most effectively serve that mission, the following
resolution advocating the realignment of the national office
and its relationship to congregations is offered .
Whereas, During the Synod’s 163-year history, it has on
many occasions evaluated and adjusted its national operations
and their relationship to districts, circuits, and congregations;
and
Whereas, As the Synod grew, it was necessary to implement additional systems of operations, accountability, and
organization; and
Whereas, Occasionally the Synod in convention implemented changes to its national operations structure in order to
address specific issues; however, it did so without realizing
the effect on the whole; and
Whereas, With significantly diminishing unrestricted
funds at the national level, there is a need to “right-size”
national operations in a way similar to what many districts,
congregations, schools, and family households have done to
adjust the size of operations to fiscal realities; and
Whereas, At the 2009 district conventions, more than
7,000 survey respondents (approximately 70 percent) agreed
that there is a need to realign national office operations, and
during the regional gatherings of delegates survey respondents
also agreed (50 to 75 percent), only raising caution with the
concept of creating “advisory commissions”; and
Whereas, After years of study, now is the time to realign
the national operations of the Synod for the sake both of its
MISSION effectiveness and faithful STEWARDSHIP of the
gifts of God to His church; therefore be it
Resolved, That current bylaw responsibilities for the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) and
for the Commission on Doctrinal Review be retained . The
Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) will continue
to be responsible for interpreting the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod, while the Commission on Handbook
(COH) (presently called the Commission on Structure) will be
responsible for the ongoing maintenance and management of
the Handbook and for making recommendations to the convention for modification of the same, the process of appointing
the COH following the process used to appoint the CCM; and
be it further
Resolved, That the national office operations be realigned
so that
(a) the existing program boards and some staffed commissions are eliminated;
(b) all staff performing functions ultimately assigned to
the national office are accountable to an officer of the organization, with the exception of the CTCR; and
2010 Convention Proceedings