Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2001 · 61st Convention › Page 299
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 299
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Sheet 142
Sheet 143
Sheet 144
Sheet 145
Sheet 146
Sheet 147
Sheet 148
Page 2
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
Page 369
Page 370
Page 371
Page 372
Page 373
Page 374
Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
Page 382
Page 383
Page 384
Page 385
Page 386
Page 387
Page 388
Page 390
Page 391
Page 392
Page 393
Page 394
Page 395
Page 396
Page 397
Page 398
Page 399
Page 400
Page 401
Page 402
Page 403
Page 404
Page 405
Page 406
Page 407
Page 408
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
Page 440
Page 441
Page 442
Page 443
Page 444
Page 445
Page 446
Page 447
Page 448
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
Page 460
Page 461
Page 462
Page 463
Page 464
Page 465
Page 466
Page 467
Page 468
Page 469
Page 470
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
NATIONAL/DISTRICT SYNOD RELATIONS 299
WHEREAS, The 1998 convention of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod called for the establishment of a task force to study the
issue of National/District Relations (Res. 7-02A) and to prepare a
report for the 2001 convention; and
WHEREAS, The number of Districts within The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod is 35, with some areas having multiple
Districts (for instance, Illinois has three Districts; California, Min-
nesota, lowa, and Wisconsin each have two Districts) and two Dis-
tricts being nongeographical (English, SELC), which find sister
congregations of different Districts across the street from each
other; and
WHEREAS, Our Synod has been struggling with inadequate in-
come; and
WHEREAS, Significant portions of offerings from congregations
are utilized for the expenses of our Districts; and
WHEREAS, Reducing the number of Districts will make possi-
ble an increasing amount of congregational offerings to reach the
synodical treasury; and
WHEREAS, Improved communication and transportation facili-
ties make possible effective mission and ministry in larger geo-
graphical areas; and
Wuereas, Both the Synod and the Districts have continued a
trend toward larger and more diversified staffs to operate both sep-
arate and joint ventures; and
WuerEAS, This expansion and development has not been
heretofore coordinated to any great degree, and a resultant dupli-
cation of effort, confusion over responsibility, unnecessary expen-
diture, and increased cost for maintenance, equipping, housing, and
staffing of these multiple operations has occurred; and
WHEREAS, The members and congregations would be more eq-
uitably represented at the synodical level; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Texas District memorialize Synod in con-
vention to consolidate Districts to achieve better utilization of per-
sonnel and fiscal resources.
Texas District
8-48
To Decline Task Force Recommendation
to Amalgamate Nongeographic Districts
Wuereas, The Preliminary Report of Task Force on Na-
tional/District Synod Relations (“TF” hereafter) recommends the
possible dissolution and amalgamation of the English and SELC
Districts of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, offering with-
out any substantiation as its rationale four assertions: “(a) the cost
of operating nongeographic Districts; (b) the absence of any com-
pelling reason to continue nongeographic Districts; (c) clear prior
intent on the part of the Synod to carry out such dissolution and
amalgamation long ago; and (d) changed capabilities to serve con-
gregations with advances in technology”; and
WHEREAS, The SELC District operates at less cost than average
for Districts and the English District’s administrative costs are
equal to the average of geographic Districts; and
WHEREAS, There are compelling reasons to continue nongeo-
graphic Districts such as their flexibility for mission outreach in
areas where the Synod is underrepresented or geographic Districts
lack resources; their ability to act as liaisons between geographic
Districts in various mission enterprises; and their ability to serve
as a microcosm of the Synod because of their transnational and
even international (Canadian) membership; and
WHEREAS, Previous proposals to dissolve the nongeographic
Districts were declined by the Synod in convention, both in recog-
nition of the continuing value of nongeographic Districts and be-
cause of the Jegitimate concern that proposals to dissolve the non-
geographic Districts should originate with the Districts themselves;
and
Wuereas, Technological advances provide greater ease and ef-
ficiency of operation for nongeographic Districts, rather than pro-
viding any reason to dissolve them; and
Wuereas, The legitimacy of the Synod’s dissolution of Dis-
tricts without the Districts’ agreement is itself a highly debatable
constitutional question, particularly in the instance of Districts that
the Synod did not establish (both the English and SELC Districts
were autonomous synods prior to merger with The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod); and
WHEREAS, For all of these reasons, the convention of the Eng-
lish District has petitioned The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
to refrain from any attempt to dissolve or amalgamate the English
District, and the SELC District Board of Directors has expressed
the same sentiment about its District; therefore be it
Resolved, That the convention of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod respectfully decline any recommendation to dissolve
and amalgamate the English and SELC Districts; and be it further
Resolved, That the congregations and missions of the English
and SELC Districts of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod be
encouraged to continue their work and to pursue faithfully and vig-
orously the mission our Lord gives to his church to “make disci-
ples of all nations.”
Board of Directors. English District; Assembly of Christ,
Phoenix, AZ
8-49
To Reject Dissolution and Amalgamation
of Nongeographic Districts
WHEREAS, Any move toward amalgamation of the congrega-
tions of the English District and the SELC into geographical Dis-
tricts should originate within those Districts; and
Wuereas, The English District and the SELC do not wish to be
dissolved or amalgamated into the geographical Districts; and
WHEREAS, The English District at its last convention passed a
resolution to communicate to Synod its desire to remain a District
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and
WHEREAS, English District roots predate the Saxon immigration
to Perry County, MO (1820); and
Wuereas, A 1923 resolution states that if dissolution would
take place, it “should come from the English District”; and
WHEREAS, There is no evidence that the Synod would save
money by dissolving its nongeographic Districts; and
WHEREAS, The English District provides the LCMS a way to
connect with its 1 congregations in Canada, who without the Eng-
lish District and its Canada Corporation would, in all likelihood,
cease to be members of the LCMS; and
Wrereas, God has blessed the English District and the SELC
with rich heritages of service to the Lord and His church and con-
tinues to bless the English District and the SELC as viable institu-
tions in faithfulness, mission, and service; therefore be it
Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod reject
the Task Force proposal to dissolve and amalgamate the English
District and the SELC; that the English District and the SELC re-
main intact; and that the English District and the SELC be com-
mended for their faithful service to the Lord and His church.
Messiah
Princeton, NJ
8-50
To Reject Task Force Recommendations
re District Realignment
WHEREAS, The statement of the task force of a clear and prior
intent on part of the Synod to carry out the dissolution and amalga-
mation of its nongeographical Districts long ago is inaccurate and
cannot be substantiated by our history; and
2001 Convention Workbook