Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2019 · 67th Convention, Tampa › Page 334
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 334

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

334

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

f)

overture, note proposed Bylaws 6.2.1 (b–d).
Uniformity of approach across districts is important to cross-district RSOs. The Task Force
would commend this as an important topic of
discussion for the Council of Presidents.

but not a regular call from an eligible calling
body. It could also be used in the situation of
an organization unwilling or unable to extend
a call under the above rules, or for a worker
employed prior to their adoption.

Clarifying Calls by RSOs: With regard to
calls extended on behalf of the church (specifically, on behalf of the congregations of the
Synod as a whole) by RSOs, there have been
many questions over time. The recognition of
calls by RSOs as “regular calls,” to be treated
as such and accorded active roster status,
has long been accepted in the Synod on the
general argument that the Synod authorizes the
RSOs to act, in this respect, in the name and
in the authority of the Synod’s congregations.
“The church” is the authority extending these
calls “through” the RSOs. Something that has
not been addressed explicitly is how those
RSOs that are governed by those of different
confessions (the pan-Lutheran organizations)
extend calls under this theory—the same board
extending calls sometimes to workers of one
confession, and sometimes, another. The task
force, not desiring to short-circuit a necessary
and fruitful, thorough investigation of the doctrine of the call as its relates to such organizations (with regard especially to the Office of
the Public Ministry but also as it relates to the
auxiliary/commissioned offices, which also
are subject to the confessional standard of the
Synod), determined not to propose restricting
the authority to make such calls, but to more
explicitly regulate what constitutes a regular
call in such a circumstance, and to involve the
district president who would assume supervision more explicitly in that determination
(proposed Bylaws 6.2.2.2 and 1.10.2).

Church workers called by RSOs, unlike
those called by congregations or non-RSO
schools, are not yet covered by the Synod’s
dispute resolution process. There is presently
no recourse to that system of Christian reconciliation in the event of issues surrounding the
worker’s call. Proposed bylaws would change
this, requiring an RSO to agree to submit to the
dispute resolution process as a condition of its
being able to call a rostered church worker (a
condition of participation to be elaborated in
the RSO Agreement). As the call extended by
an RSO is recognized by virtue of its being on
behalf of the church, the church has a proper
role in resolving disputes arising out of the call.
(Or, put another way, the right to call cannot be
conferred by the Synod on an RSO apart from
the responsibility to address disputes with the
one called in a churchly manner and according
to the Synod’s process: “Fitness for ministry
and other theological matters must be determined within the church,” Bylaw 1.10.1.1)
This would provide protections both for workers and for calling organizations and increase
the comparability of an RSO call with one
extended by an agency, congregation, or school
of the Synod.
g)

Triennial RSO Conference in the NonConvention Year: There could be a significant
advantage to the Synod, to the RSOs, and to
the programmatic work of both, in holding a
regular gathering of Synod offices and agencies
with the RSOs. This could be a venue for coordination of programs, sharing of best practices,
continuing education on governance and regulatory topics, mutual support and consolation
in the face of cultural shifts and ministry challenges, etc. Funding could be through grants
and/or through a sliding registration fee based
on annual organization budget. In addition to
such a conference, or as an alternative format,
it was suggested that occasional webinars
might serve the purpose of fostering growth in
the program and the exchange of ideas among
organizations. Such events might prove a key
part of a more interactive and influential RSO
program. The task force therefore recommends
such a conference be attempted, while leaving
feasibility and implementation to be developed.

h)

Recovery of Program Cost / Optimization of
Program Effort: As RSO recognition offers
substantial benefits to the organizations recognized, and as the process of recognition itself
is a valuable conversation with the Synod as

In the proposal, all RSO calls are conducted in consultation with the district president
who will assume supervision of the worker and
are also under the stipulation, to be stated in
the call documents, that the RSO expects the
worker to perform his or her ministry fully and
without compromise according to the scriptural
and confessional standards of the Synod.
It is noted at the same time that a district
can endorse a particular position for which a
call is not possible, recognizing that a worker’s
ministry is possible to be carried out in that
circumstance, although an ordinary call has not
been and cannot be extended by the employer.
The endorsement of a “specialized ministry”
position by the district grants the worker active
roster status, even in the absence of a call (Bylaw 2.11.1 [i]). This is often done for chaplains
in state prisons, public hospitals, etc., that
have employment and the opportunity to carry
out Word or Word-and-Sacrament ministry,
2019 Convention Workbook