LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 136

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

136

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Therefore, because of their independence from the Synod in organization and administration, Bylaw 3.8.3 is not binding on auxiliaries. At the same time, while they are operating with freedom and
self-determination, their bylaw responsibilities to the Synod offer
ample opportunity and expectation for coordination with the Synod’s
foreign mission efforts, especially when partner churches are involved
or affected.
E. Recognized Service Organizations and Foreign Missions

A service organization is granted recognized status by the Synod
when its mission and ministry are recognized by the Synod to “foster the mission and ministry of the church” (Bylaw 6.2.1). As such,
a recognized service organization operates with freedom and selfdetermination as a ministry organization entirely independent of the
Synod and its districts and its member congregations (Bylaw 6.2.1
[a]) and independent of control by the Synod (Bylaw 6.2.1 [b]). A
recognized service organization continues to qualify for this status
so long as it “engages in program activity that is in harmony with the
programs of the boards of the Synod, and respects and does not act
contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod” (2013 Handbook,
pp. 203–204).
Therefore Bylaw 3.8.3 does not apply to recognized service organizations per se. However, continued recognized status hinges on
“engag[ing] in program activity that is in harmony with the programs
of the boards of the Synod” (Bylaw 6.2.1), including the programs
of the Office of International Mission as determined by policy established by the Board for International Mission “for the coordination
of and in support of ministries of the Synod in foreign countries”
(Bylaw 3.8.3.1).
Response to Questions
Question 1: Can/May a district, congregation, RSO, or auxiliary of
the Synod call a pastor or other rostered worker of the
Synod for the purpose of that worker serving in “foreign
areas”?
Opinion: Foreign missions is a jurisdiction that the Synod has retained for itself (Bylaw 4.1.5). Districts and congregations may not
call rostered church workers for service in foreign areas, as supported throughout the Bylaws of the Synod (e.g., Bylaws 2.11.1
[a] and [g]; 2.12.1.4; 4.4.3 [b]). If it is an area so designated by
the Board for International Mission (Bylaw 3.1.4.3), interest in
supporting a worker must be coordinated with the Office of International Mission. While auxiliaries and recognized service organizations are independent of the Synod’s control, requirements
for their relationships to the Synod and its agencies make clear the
expectation that communication and coordination will take place to
make certain that foreign mission activities, including the calling
of rostered workers, will “aid the Synod” (Bylaw 6.1.1) and are “in
harmony with the programs of the boards of the Synod” (Bylaw
6.2.1) and respect protocol documents (Bylaws 3.3.1.1.2; 6.1.3 [g];
6.2.1 [d]) and other agreements.
Question 2: Can/May a district, congregation, RSO, or auxiliary
of the Synod call a pastor or other rostered worker of
the Synod for the purposes of “lending” him to another
entity, RSO, or agency of the Synod, or to a mission
society not affiliated officially with the Synod (a private IRS 501 (c) (3) mission society) with the expressed
purpose of having that called worker serve in “foreign
areas”?
Opinion: In addition to a number of theological and practical concerns likely associated with such practice as described, calling a
pastor or other rostered worker in order to “lend” him/her to another agency or entity for service in a foreign area is tantamount to
2016 Convention Workbook

extending the call for the worker to serve in a mission field and is
not appropriate for reasons given in sections (B)–(E) above.
Question 3: Can/May a district, congregation, RSO, or auxiliary of
the Synod send funds to a mission society or other nonSynod entity for the purpose of doing work in “foreign
areas”?
Opinion: Districts may not send funds to mission societies and nonSynod entities for doing work in foreign areas except through the
Board for International Mission.
In keeping with “[o]ur Lord’s will that the diversity of gifts should
be for the common profit. 1 Cor. 12:4–31” (Constitution Preamble),
congregations may not send funds to mission societies and non-Synod
entities for work in foreign areas without taking into consideration
policies developed and determined for this purpose by the Board
of International Mission as the only sending agency. Such policies
must honor the principle of congregational autonomy. They must
also take into consideration Constitution Article III, which articulates
the Synod’s obligations and objectives toward its congregations, and
Constitution Article VI 2 c, which requires as a condition of membership in the Synod the renunciation of unionistic and syncretistic
practices such as “[p]articipating in heterodox tract and missionary
activities” (2013 Handbook, p. 15).
Auxiliaries, whose members are often members of the Synod,
will of necessity be sensitive to this constitutional expectation as
well. And recognized service organizations will take care that their
program activities respect and are not contrary to the doctrine and
practice of the Synod.
Question 4: Can/May a district, congregation, RSO, or auxiliary of
the Synod determine on its own, without consultation
with the Synod, what is or is not a “foreign area” of the
Synod’s mission work?
Opinion: The Bylaws of the Synod assume that such determination belongs to the Synod’s Board for International Mission (Bylaw
3.1.4.3) and not districts and congregations. Auxiliaries and recognized service organizations will do well to honor the Synod’s “foreign mission area” designations as well, in light of their supportive
and cooperative relationships with the Synod.
Question 5: If a congregation or other synodical entity besides the
BIM has issued [a] call, what guidance can the CCM
provide in approaching the situation?
Opinion: Situations where the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod have not been properly followed require evangelical attention by those whose responsibility it is to see to it that
the decisions and principles of the Synod are honored and carried
out (Constitution Art. XI B; XII 7, 9; Bylaws 1.2.1 [i]; 3.3.1.1.1;
3.3.1.2; 4.4.2; et al.). For its part, the Board for International Mission (and the Office of International Mission) will also want to
cooperate with and facilitate efforts and remedies that will honor
Bylaw 3.8.3 while also honoring “the desire of people to have direct and personal contact with a specific mission project” (2013
Res. 1-08 “To Work Together in Mission,” Proceedings, p. 103).
September 26–27, 2014
Realignment of Visitation Circuits (14-2734)
With an August 20, 2014, memorandum, officers of the MidSouth District submitted three questions regarding the realignment
of visitation circuits. The commission responded as follows.
Question 1: Did amendment of Synod Bylaw 3.1.2 (a) by the 2013
Synod convention authorize district boards of directors to create or realign adjacent visitation circuits by
determining their makeup to allow for the requirements