Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2019 · 67th Convention, Tampa › Page 330
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 330

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

330

V. REPORT OF THE 2016 RES. 4-03B TASK FORCE ON RECOGNIZED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

As directed by the noted resolution, the task force comprised:
Chief Mission Officer Kevin Robson (Chairman); Secretary of the
Synod John Sias (Secretary); Chief Administrative Officers Ron
Schultz and (subsequently) Frank Simek; Office of National Mission Executive Directors Bart Day and (subsequently) Bob Zagore; Recognized Service Organization Program Director Dorothy
Krans; Office of the President representative Barb Below, Assistant
to the President; Council of Presidents Representative Dan Gilbert
(President, Northern Illinois District, now retired); and RSO Chief
Executive Officers Ron Drews (Luth. Social Services of S. California) and Max Phillips (Lutheran Family Services of Iowa and Perry
Lutheran Home; Chairman, LCEF Board of Directors). The group
met six times during the triennium, with subcommittees meeting
several additional times, and with information and feedback being
gathered from program constituents, both in the Synod and reflecting the RSO population. This report, reflecting the consensus of the
task force members at the conclusion of the work, is our attempt to
achieve these broad and apparently counter-indicative goals:
•

First, to improve the connection of organizations with
the Synod (congregations, schools, and institutions) and
their respect for and embrace of the doctrine and practice of the Synod, so that the congregations’ synodical
objectives are advanced through the RSO program.

•

At the same time, to recognize that organizations also
relate to important partners in public agencies and funding sources and do some of their work under restrictive
regulatory domains—some of which are increasingly
disposed to impose on charitable work an ethic that is
foreign to the church.

The task force believes, fundamentally, that the success of the
RSO program has been challenged by its excessive uniformity. Its
policies and procedures require clear differentiation in at least
three dimensions:
a)

Organizational work: The program involves,
under one set of standards, monolithically, too
many disparate types of organizations (witness,
mercy, education).

b)

Organizational governance and mission:
Some organizations are closely held by the
church, clearly and fully profess a single confession, and have work closely aligned with the
Gospel mission. Others, while operating alongside the Gospel mission, perform civic good
works in which cooperation-in-externals is the
model. These (often pan-Lutheran) organizations may have governance structures reflecting
cooperation in externals with those of other
confessions—some differences of which relate
manifestly to natural law questions and mercy
work. They may also suffer adverse regulation
or strictures that often accompany funding or
reimbursement by governments.

c)

Organizational scope: The program requires
significant centralized administrative overhead (and therefore distances supervision of
status) even in the case of organizations that
have decidedly local impact and would benefit
from closer and more frequent interaction with

2019 Convention Workbook

those providing ecclesiastical oversight (a term
defined precisely in Section 6 below).
A lack of differentiation along these three axes has increased
administrative expense, bred confusion, and limited the value of
participation in the program for organizations of all types, as none
has received just what is proper to its situation. A proper intention to include as many allied organizations as possible has led to
a perceived default “least common denominator” approach which
is not maximally helpful to any of them—or to the Synod or its
congregations.
Commonly raised and long-term issues have surrounded the
questions of RSOs—especially those having a diversity of confession among the leadership. What are the implications today of
“pan-Lutheran” organizations calling rostered workers of the Synod? Concerns have also been raised from time to time regarding
the supervision, in general, of RSO called workers. Some RSOs
have also come to have vast geographical scope, operating across
multiple districts. Some are involved in church planting, provision
of pastoral service to congregations, etc., sometimes challenging
the practical ability of a local district president to exercise effective
oversight. Regarding call and supervision of rostered workers employed by RSOs, the proposal aims for clearer expectations of doctrinal and practical fidelity, increased protection for workers, and a
more explicit role for district presidents in supporting the call process (areas also being addressed in an independent proposal from
the Council of Presidents and Commission on Handbook, dealing
with call and roster matters). On the threefold differentiation above
the proposal builds—or builds toward—solutions for these issues.

2. Aspects of Proposed RSO Program
Revitalization
Fully aware that detailed definition of the program must rely on
policy bodies (the LCMS Board of Directors and mission boards)
and the mission offices of the Synod (proposed Bylaw 6.2.3), and
that this process may take some time, the task force is submitting an
overture proposing bylaw changes with the following aims:
a)

Clarifying the Objectives of the RSO program: The RSO program, as an activity of the
Synod, must be broadly shaped by Synod’s
Constitution (especially the Preamble and
Articles II and III) and Bylaws in addition to
those of section 6.2, dealing explicitly with
RSOs: those dealing with Synod’s purpose,
structure, and function “in support of and on
behalf of Synod’s congregations” (Bylaws
1.1.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.4.1); those delineating the
function of conventions, including the setting
of triennial mission and ministry priorities
(Bylaws 3.1.1, 4.2.1 [d], 5.3.4); and those laying out the function of Synod’s mission offices,
with which RSOs coordinate and by which
they are recognized (Bylaws 3.8.2.7, 3.8.2.6).
At a fundamental level, recognition that an
RSO “extend[s] the mission and ministry of the
Synod” (Bylaw 6.2.2) requires positive definition of that mission and ministry (a task aided
by the 2010 restructuring of the Synod and its
creation of convention-determined triennial
mission and ministry priorities) and concrete
assessment of how an RSO’s work relates