LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 143

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
mark, except where regional representation is a preference or requirement of the Synod.” The same principle applies in the nomination process, to avoid giving anyone an unfair advantage over
others who may be nominated. At the same time, the fact of incumbency may be helpful to know, especially since incumbents are
not automatically nominated by reason of their incumbency in the
regional nominations process. It may therefore be noted in explanatory material accompanying nominating ballots that incumbency
information is available via the Internet or Lutheran Annual, or
by direct inquiry to the boards having regional positions open for
nomination and subsequent election.
Adopted July 10–11, 2015
Follow-Up Questions re CCM Opinion 14-2724 (15-2771)
A pastor of the Synod, via a June 15, 2015, email, submitted
“clarifying questions regarding CCM Opinion 14-2724 on Bylaw
3.8.3,” the questions apparently prompted by a frequently-askedquestions document provided by the Office of the President. As required by Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), the commission notified those officers
and/or agencies of the Synod directly impacted by the request and
provided opportunity for submission of information regarding the
matter(s) at issue.
The commission noted that the questions as submitted reveal a
need for clarification of the duties of the Synod’s two foreign mission
entities, the Board for International Mission (BIM) and the Office of
International Mission (OIM):
• The BIM is primarily a policy-making agency charged with “developing and determining policies in support of mission and ministry in
foreign countries” (Bylaw 3.8.3) and providing oversight of the implementation of those policies by the OIM (Bylaw 3.8.3.1). The BIM also
serves as the Synod’s agency “through which workers and funds are
sent to the foreign mission areas of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.8.3).
• The OIM implements the policies provided by the BIM “for the coordination of and in support of ministries of the Synod in foreign countries”
(Bylaw 3.8.3.1), including “placement and support of foreign missionaries” (Bylaw 3.8.3.3). It also receives direction from the President
of the Synod through the Chief Mission Officer “on all aspects of its
responsibilities” (Bylaw 3.8.3.4) and offers recommendations to the
BIM for policies (Bylaw 3.8.3.3) that will assist “in support of mission and ministry in foreign countries” (Bylaw 3.8.3).

Question 1: The document that is commended publicly by the
Office of the President for consideration and clarification regarding the opinion of the CCM 14-2724 states
that said opinion does not address short-term mission
trips. (1) Is this correct that the opinion does not address
short-term mission trips? (2) How can the length of time
(short-term vs. long-term) be a consideration when the
bylaws do not address this difference? The Bylaws
clearly state that the BIM is the only sending agency
through which workers and funds are sent to foreign
mission areas of the Synod. If the elected/appointed/
hired people at the BIM are the only sending agency,
how does the length of time make a difference? The
BIM’s own document regarding short-term missions
clearly points out the horrible things that have and can
happen if short-term missions are not done through the
BIM. (3) What is the definition of a short-term mission
as opposed to a long-term mission?
It is also noteworthy that the BIM in their document
“LCMS Best Practices in Short-Term Mission” use[s]
this bylaw to point [out] how it is “vital” that any LCMS
person work through the BIM and be approved by those
elected/appointed/hired individuals there. Vital is a very
ambiguous word that could be used as either a good idea

143

or mandatory. Nevertheless, this bylaw is used, at a minimum, by the BIM to show that this bylaw does apply
to short-term missions in some regards. Thus, there is
at least some confusion as to what is encompassed by
the terms “only sending agency.”
Opinion: “Foreign missions” is a jurisdiction that the Synod has
reserved for itself (Bylaw 4.1.5), and congregations and church
workers by their membership in the Synod have agreed to honor
this jurisdiction. Bylaw 3.8.3 then specifically addresses formal
mission activity by the Synod, naming the BIM as the sending
agency solely responsible for “the calling, appointing, assigning,
withdrawing, and releasing of missionaries … for the ministries
in foreign areas.” But it has also become necessary to distinguish
between missionary efforts involving such official actions as listed
in Bylaw 3.8.3 and other more spontaneous and short-term mission
activity that takes place in support of ministries of the Synod in
foreign countries (Bylaw 3.8.3.1), often within the jurisdictions of
partner churches. The best-practices document, called for by the
2013 convention, invites and facilitates such short-term mission
and ministry activity, thereby also fostering the good order clearly
intended by the Synod with the adoption of Bylaws 3.8.3–3.8.3.6.
Therefore, in answer to the specific questions asked under Question 1: (1) Opinion 14-2724 did not directly address short-term mission trips, instead zeroing in on formal mission efforts that involve
calls or contracts. The Synod itself, in keeping with its foreign missions jurisdiction, has addressed matters related to short-term mission
efforts by requiring the creation of the short-term missions document [2013 Res. 1-08 “To Work Together in Mission,” Proceedings,
p. 103]. Hence, (2) the Synod itself has already made this distinction
between short- and long-term mission efforts, (3) the definition of
“short-term mission” necessarily becoming mission activity other
than what is specifically addressed by Bylaw 3.8.3. Districts and
congregations engaged in mission projects are therefore encouraged
to communicate their international mission activities to appropriate
Synod entities “for the purposes of healthy coordination and good
stewardship” (2013 Res. 1-08).
Question 2: As this bylaw states that the BIM is the only sending
agency to foreign mission areas, and the opinion of the
CCM seems to be directed primarily towards the districts and congregations that form up the Synod, does
this apply to all agencies and their elected/appointed/
hired workers? Thus the point, is it necessary for the
seminaries, colleges, and all agencies to work solely
through the BIM for sending professors and workers
around the world if said country is a designated foreign
mission field?
Opinion: CCM Opinion 14-2724 responded to specific questions
pertaining to districts, congregations, auxiliaries, and recognized
service organizations. The Synod’s seminaries, colleges, and other
agencies must also comply with the requirements and expectations
of Synod Bylaw 3.8.3 and 2013 Res. 1-08 and related policies provided by the BIM.
Question 3: In the interpretation of the opinion that is commended by
the Office of the President, a hyperlink is given to know
what those foreign areas are. It is a map of every place to
which any funds have gone, any agreement is in place,
any missionary is working, or there is anything taking
place. Is the definition of a foreign area any country
in which there is contact? Thus, if the BIM has given
a grant for Bibles to be sent to China, does that mean
that work among the over 1 billion in China is off limits
except through the BIM?

2016 Convention Workbook