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

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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