LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 321

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

INTERNATIONAL WITNESS
Laodicea (Col. 1:6−7; 4:12−13) without approval and sending by the
church at Antioch; and
Whereas, This decentralization in the sending of missionaries
and funding of missionaries to carry the Gospel and enact the Gospel
in works of mercy and service is a blessing to the Church at large in
carrying out the mission of God who “wants all men to be saved and
come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), and to the local congregation which is thereby invigorated for its own local mission work,
as happened to the brothers who supported Paul during his imprisonment in Philippians 1:14, when they were made “more bold to speak
the word without fear”; and
Whereas, The Lutheran Confessions state clearly when speaking
of the local congregation, “For wherever the church exists, the right
to administer the Gospel also exists. Wherefore it is necessary for the
church to retain the right of calling, electing, and ordaining ministers. This right is a gift given exclusively to the church, and no human
authority can take it away from the church” (Tr 63); and
Whereas, For these reasons LCMS congregations regularly participate in supporting the mission efforts of organizations outside of
our own church body which are having a positive impact on the ministry of the Gospel in both local and foreign lands; and
Whereas, CCM Opinion 14-2724 has recently stated that “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”; “districts may not send funds to
mission societies and non-Synod entities for doing work in foreign
areas except through the Board for International Mission”; and “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 for
International Mission as the only sending agency”; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2016 LCMS convention amend the Synod’s
Bylaws as follows to reflect the biblical theology above:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
3.8.3 … Upon the recommendation of the Office of International
Mission, the board shall serve as the only sendingan agency through
which workers and funds are sent to the foreign mission areas of the
Synod, including the calling, appointing, assigning, withdrawing, and
releasing of missionaries (ministers of religion–ordained and ministers
of religion–commissioned) and other workers for the ministries in foreign areas.
4.1.5 Jurisdiction with respect to everything that is administered by
or for the entire Synod resides in the national Synod itself. Jurisdiction
includes but is not limited to general supervision of doctrine and practice; coordination of foreign missions; institutions of the Synod; qualification for ordination, commissioning, and installation of ordained and
commissioned ministers and requirements for individual as well as congregational membership in the Synod; publication of official religious
periodicals; conduct of negotiations and affiliations with other church
bodies; and the like.

and be it further
Resolved, That for the sake of good order, congregations seeking
to send missionaries to a foreign land coordinate with their circuit,
district, and the Board for International Mission; and be it finally
Resolved, That congregations be encouraged to continue to participate in the funding of missionaries sent through the Board for
International Mission in appreciation for their faithful work on behalf
of the Synod at large.
Holy Cross
Spokane, WA

321

2-09

To Overrule CCM Opinion 14-2724
and Amend Bylaw 3.8.3
Whereas, The CCM in its opinion 14-2724 noted: “the 1981
(Synodical) convention Res. 1-05A, ‘To Go Forward in Overseas
Missions,’ calling the spread of the Gospel to all the world the ‘primary mission of the church’ ”; and
Whereas, The CCM in the section “A History of Bylaw 3.8.3” of
its opinion concludes that “the bylaw’s historical background clarifies
the intent of this specific provision of the bylaw, i.e., that for the sake
of good order and effectiveness, the Board for International Mission
is to serve as the Synod’s only sending agency through which workers and funds are sent to the foreign mission areas of the Synod”
(emphasis added); and
Whereas, It is broadly known throughout the Synod that the
Synod itself for the last several decades has been encouraging districts, circuits, congregations, auxiliaries, and RSOs to engage in the
direct financial support of international missions; and
Whereas, Direct mission support and action by districts, circuits,
congregations, auxiliaries, and RSOs was in fact acknowledged by
the Synod in its adoption of 2013 Res. 1-08, which was quoted in the
CCM’s opinion 14-2724 as follows:
During the last 50 years people’s ideas about mission have changed
due to the ease of global transportation and communication, the affluence of North American society, and 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).

The CCM noted that the convention’s response was twofold:
Resolved, That the Synod, by the next convention, develop and provide a mission best-practices policy document for districts and congregations engaged in mission projects to assist them better to carry out
their mission in their life together; and be it further
Resolved, That these best practices include encouragement to districts and congregations to communicate their international mission
activities to the Synod’s Director of Church Relations and Offices of
National and International Mission for the purposes of healthy coordination and good stewardship.” (Proceedings, p. 103, emphasis added)

and
Whereas, The clear implications of the language of Res. 1-08,
including these resolves, is that the Synod knows and acknowledges
that districts and congregations are engaged in direct international
mission work and that the Synod desires and encourages communication of the same to the mission offices of the Synod “for the purposes
of healthy coordination and good stewardship” and not for the purposes of limiting, controlling, or ending of such direct international
mission work; and
Whereas, The CCM makes an argument from silence, concluding that “by not altering the wording or meaning of Bylaw 3.8.3 the
Synod itself has provided input into the proper understanding and
application of the bylaw” (CCM Opinion 14-2724). On the contrary,
the Synod acknowledged the ongoing direct mission activity by districts and congregations and nowise resolved that such direct mission
activity should cease due to the existence of Bylaw 3.8.3, which could
and, if the CCM’s conclusion is allowed to stand, should have been
cited; therefore be it
Resolved, That the New England District memorialize the Synod
in convention to overrule CCM Opinion 14-2724, thereby rendering
it null and void; and be it further
Resolved, That the last sentence of Bylaw 3.8.3 be amended as
follows:
2016 Convention Workbook