LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 97

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 97

thermore, in many cases it would be advisable to take an issue to
the District convention for forwarding for consideration at the na-
tional convention of the Synod.

The rationale for doing so includes the following:

1. If one cannot convince a group such as a Circuit Forum or
District convention of the importance of an issue, it is un-
likely that the Synod would be persuaded of its importance
or value.

2. On the other hand, if the issue is supported by a Circuit
Forum, District, or other larger unit, it will likely be given
much greater weight and will more likely result in action
being taken.

3. The number of overtures which now appear in the Conven-
tion Workbook originate in an extremely small number of
congregations, some of which forward as many as 15 or more
overtures each and one of which forwarded 40. There is no
guarantee that they represent the major concerns of the
Synod.

The right of expression of the voting members of the Synod, the
congregations, must be maintained. It should certainly not be stifled
in any way. However, I believe that protection is provided in the
proposal being made. If adopted, it would require a Bylaw amend-
ment to provide for that process.

In closing this report, I wish to publicly express thanks to Pearl
Houghton, executive assistant, without whose dedication and sup-
port it would not have been possible to carry out the work required
of the office. Since she is the sole person assigned as staff for the
office of the Secretary, the volume of work is very heavy, involving
also a large number of contacts with persons throughout the Synod
who seek help and information from this office.

Numerous thoughts occur as I conclude my service as Secre-
tary of the Synod, all of them permeated with gratitude; gratitude
for the guidance of the Spirit in responding to the challenges of the
office; gratitude to our gracious God for forgiveness of sins in
times of failure; gratitude for the opportunity to make some con-
tribution to our beloved Synod in various areas; gratitude for the
health and strength needed from day to day; above all, gratitude for
the grace of God by which we have been reconciled through the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom be glory now and
forever.

Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

R7-03
Vice-President—Finance—Treasurer

As we gather together at this convention, 21 years have come
and gone since I was elected Treasurer of the Synod at the 1977
convention in Dallas, Tex. It has truly been an honor for me to have
served the congregations, pastors, and people of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod for this extended period of time. Only
10 men have experienced this honor since our founding in 1847. I
did not arrive in St. Louis in 1974 expecting to ever serve in an
elected office. However, having now entered my 25th year of ser-
vice to the Synod, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of our
forefathers as they laid out their vision for an organization which
could do collectively what individual congregations could not do
for themselves. When conventions or boards stray from that vision
and adopt bylaws and rules to control rather than to promote, serve,
and empower the congregations that are the members, we tend to
lose that which makes us uniquely The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod and quite different from Protestant denominations.

The constitutional office I hold has changed dramatically over
the past two-plus decades. In fact it has become quite clear that it is
impossible to do well all of the assignments that have been as-
signed to this office. Our LCMS structure requires much consulta-
tion and frequently leaves unclear how authority and leadership are
to be exercised. Consequently, much time and energy must be put
into efforts to influence and persuade, leaving inadequate time to
accomplish the specific operating functions. The growth of the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund and the LCMS Foundation espe-
cially have resulted in a need for those organizations to have their
own full-time chief financial officers and presidents, offices which

at one time could be handled on a part-time basis by the Synod’s
Vice-President-Finance—Treasurer. In addition, the growth of the
Concordia University System makes necessary that it have its own
full-time chief financial officer as well.

While most of these organizational issues were identified prior
to the last convention, it chose to refer the proposed solutions to
Dr. Barry’s newly appointed Biue Ribbon Committee on Structure.
I am pleased to report that they have dealt with most of these is-
sues and have proposed convention actions to deal with them.
While I am not in complete agreement with all of their proposals as
relates to all of the precise details, I am in agreement with their
conclusion that the Vice-President-Finance—Treasurer is “overex-
tended by being asked to wear too many ‘hats,’” and that he should
no longer serve in the capacity of presidenvchief executive officer
of the LCMS Foundation or as chief financial officer of Lutheran
Church Extension Fund and Concordia University System. I do be-
lieve, however, that eliminating the constitutional office will, in the
long run, not be in the best interest of carrying out the duties that
remain with that office, namely serving as a voting member of four
major boards of the Synod and as a new nonvoting member of one
other. Since the Blue Ribbon Committee also proposes to add con-
vention-elected members to boards that in the past have been ap-
pointed by Synod’s Board of Directors or by the members of the
corporations that the Synod in convention has authorized to pro-
vide specific services in behalf of the entire church body, it seems
inappropriate to eliminate this office from the Constitution and the
convention-endorsed election.

Having said that, there is much in the report of the Blue Rib-
bon Committee that needs to be seriously considered by the con-
vention and adopted. Most of the items identified have been under
discussion by Synod directors or others for many years. The pro-
posals, while perhaps not perfect, are improvements on present
Constitution and Bylaw provisions.

Of disappointment for me personally in the work of the Blue
Ribbon Committee was their inability to deal with the questions
concerning the relationship between the Synod and the Districts it
has created. It has seemed to me over many years that some of the
difficulties within our Synod have to do with a lack of clarity re-
garding the role and function of Districts versus the national boards
and committees of the Synod. Certainly this matter needs to be re-
viewed and resolved at an early date since it seems to be a matter
which causes confusion among us. For example, if a District is the
Synod in that place, then national delegates should come to a na-
tional convention through the District convention process. And,
much of what is currently done at the national convention should
not be done unless it has come through an endorsement process of
the District convention. It is difficult to understand how a congre-
gation can petition the national Synod for time on its agenda when
that congregation cannot convince members of its own District, or
in many cases even its own Circuit, of the wisdom of its propos-
als. Presently the language we use about the Synod in our Hand-
book would suggest that in fact by secular standards it is a holding
company with an all-powerful board of directors and that the Dis-
tricts are subsidiary entities doing work assigned to them as a
branch office of the parent company. It seems to me it is long past
time to clearly articulate the rights and responsibilities of Districts
and their relationship to national boards. If in fact we have a federal
system and the Districts are the Synod in that place, then from an
authority structure the Synod Board of Directors is basically equal
in status to a District board of directors. If that is true, then many of
the meetings we hold are totally inappropriate since the “right peo-
ple” are not fully represented in the dialog and decision-making
process. Many of the Blue Ribbon Committee proposals speak to
these issues, but they are incomplete in that it is still unclear as to
the role and function and relationship of Districts to national of-
fices.

Also missing in the Blue Ribbon Committee Report is discus-
sion of how to get ownership in the actions of our national conven-
tion based on one congregation, one vote, when the size of congre-
gations varies from under 100 to over 4,000 members. Ownership
of convention actions is absolutely critical if we are to continue to
be a healthy church body.

One of the joys of my time in office has been the fine relation-