LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 246

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

246

Synod Structure and Governance

8-73

To Retain Board for Pastoral Education
Rationale
In its final report, the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure
and Governance (BRTFSSG), appointed by President Gerald
Kieschnick, has recommended eliminating the Synod’s existing program boards. It has further recommended that “functions currently
performed by the program boards...be realigned into a new two-office
ministry structure, or assigned to the LCMS Board of Directors, districts, or other LCMS agencies” (BRTFSSG Report, p. 39).
A current program board whose functions the task force does
not recommend transferring to the new two-office ministry structure is the Board for Pastoral Education. Upon its elimination, the
Task Force recommends assigning some of its responsibilities to the
respective seminary boards of regents. Other responsibilities are not
reassigned to any of the agencies listed by the task force but rather to
the President and Praesidium of the Synod.
The Board for Pastoral Education is relatively new. It had its origin
in 2004 when the Synod created both it and the Board of University
Education in an effort better to handle the workload borne for years
by the Board for Higher Education. It should be well noted that only
six years ago the Synod was convinced that separate boards were
needed to give adequate attention both to university education and
pastoral education.
The Board for Pastoral Education has a particular mandate for and
interest in coordinating the roles and responsibilities of the Synod’s
two seminaries. In its absence, for example, final approval of new
academic programs would lie with each seminary’s board of regents
(proposed Bylaw 3.10.4.4 [c]). How will this step promote coordination and avoid duplication of effort or waste of resources?
An important current responsibility of the Board for Pastoral
Education is to grant approval for initial appointments of current
seminary faculty members (Bylaw 3.8.2.3 [g]). The task force’s proposed bylaws do not seem clear on who, if anyone, would carry out
this important responsibility if the Board for Pastoral Education is
eliminated.
In the absence of this board, the task force proposes that the
President of the Synod give consent to issue a call for nominations for
a seminary presidency (proposed Bylaw 3.10.4.5.2). In addition, the
President of the Synod would provide leadership and coordination not
only for pre-seminary programs and post-seminary continuing education but also for seminary education (proposed Bylaw 3.3.1.3 [f]).
The President is also to require certification of theological and professional competency for full-time seminary faculty members (proposed
Bylaw 3.10.4.6.3). Do these responsibilities in effect require a new
level of competence among candidates for the Synod’s presidency?
At times in its history, the Synod has elected a seminary president to be its President, but in most instances those who have served
have not had extensive background or experience in higher education, either as faculty members or as administrators. Is it wise to take
these previous duties of the Board for Higher Education, now of the
Board for Pastoral Education, and simply add them to the Synod
President’s responsibilities? In 2004, the Synod determined that those
duties should be given not to an individual officer of the Synod but to
a board with specific responsibility for pastoral education.
Similarly, proposed Bylaw 3.10.4.3 (c) gives to the Praesidium
(the President and vice-presidents of the Synod) the current Board
for Pastoral Education responsibility to fill a vacant position on a

seminary board elected by the Synod in convention. The task force
offers no rationale for this recommendation. There seems to be
no compelling reason to give this responsibility to the Praesidium
other than that someone has to take it over if the Board for Pastoral
Education is eliminated.
The alternative to all of the above changes is to retain the Board
for Pastoral Education.
Resolved, That the Synod retain the Board for Pastoral Education.
Carrollton Circuit Forum, Missouri District;
Zion, Moberly, MO
8-74

To Reject Any Proposal for Name Change
Whereas, The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and
Governance (BRTFSSG) has submitted “Walking Together—The
LCMS Future: Proposals and Possibilities for Consideration and
Discussion” to each congregation of the Synod; and
Whereas, The BRTFSSG has stated that these “proposals/possibilities are not final by any means,” and therefore seeks the input of
the local member congregations of Synod; and
Whereas, We are a church body known for its faithfulness to
God’s Word, the name “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod”
distinguishing us from the many other Lutheran church bodies with
different understandings and doctrine of God’s Word; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Minnesota North District request the
BRTFSSG to discontinue further time and research of the subject
under “Items for Further Attention”: “Changing the name of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to better reflect who we are today,
a church body that serves throughout North America and in partnership with 30 other Lutheran church bodies around the world”; and
be it further
Resolved, That the Minnesota North District convention memorialize the 2010 LCMS convention to reject any proposal to change
the name “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod” as it is specified in the LCMS Constitution, Art. I and Article I of the Synod’s
Articles of Incorporation.
Minnesota North District
8-75

To Keep the Name “The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod”
Whereas, The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure
and Governance (BRTFSSG) has submitted its report “Walking
Together—The LCMS Future: Proposals and Possibilities for
Consideration and Discussion” to each congregation of the Synod;
and
Whereas, The BRTFSSG has stated that these “proposals/possibilities are not final by any means” and therefore has sought the input
of the local member congregations of Synod; and
Whereas, The LCMS is a church body known for its faithfulness
to God’s Word, its name known throughout the world, distinguishing
it from the many other Lutheran church bodies with different understandings and doctrine of God’s Word; and
Whereas, The name “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod”
identifies the Synod for what it is today, a church body that takes seriously the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions in the midst
of other Lutheran church bodies that do not; and

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 246

4/15/10 2:40 PM