LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 19

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD REPORTS 19

R1-8-02

Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force
for Funding the Mission

(A) Background

The Task Force Commission

At the 2004 synodical convention, Resolution 4-07 called for
the formation of a task force to once again study, discuss and make
recommendations for how the LCMS can best fund the work we
desire (and are mandated) to do together. This is not the first time
such a study has been done. As recently as the 1990s a national/dis-
trict pilot was developed called “Expanding the Circle” to address
the distribution of congregational/district and national funding. In
2000-2001 representatives of the Council of Presidents, the Board
of Directors and the president’s office met and discussed the chal-
lenges involved in presenting a plan for “Funding the Mission.”
The report that follows draws upon the work others have done and
humbly offers recommendations that will enable us to address the
challenge presented by the “whearas’s” of resolution 4-07 that cre-
ated this task force:

Whereas, A major purpose for having a synodical union is to fulfill
our Lord’s desire for utilizing the diversity of our many gifts for the
common good and the development of His kingdom (I Cor. 12); and

Whereas, Many financial gifts are being received and given by our
congregational members in diverse ways for the implementation, sup-
port, and maintenance of our various agreed-upon ministries and pro-
grams; and

Whereas, The basic funding pattern for the mission and ministry of
the Synod has continually evolved over our 157 year history; and

Whereas, Our Synod’s funding pattern during the past 30 years has
gradually changed from a mostly unified-budget model to a mostly des-
ignated-giving model; and

Whereas, These changes in funding trends and sources are forcing
the Synod at the national and district levels to rethink its funding sys-
tems; and

Whereas, An effective funding system needs to (1) evaluate and
identify necessary costs associated with Synod’s common-good activi-
ties, (2) value input from congregations and districts for prioritizing
areas of mission and ministry, (3) encourage and manage designated
giving from individuals and congregations, and (4) at the same time
fund in an adequate and equitable manner those common-good activi-
ties of the Synod.

A Note about Financial Reports

In a report like this we could overwhelm you with spreadsheets,
giving trends and financial reports. And as has been well proven, if
there are enough numbers ... you can pick the numbers that best
support the case you are presenting. Our task force had the excel-
lent resources of our Synod’s financial officers and spent signifi-
cant time researching the financial reports necessary to fulfill our
obligation to the church. We have decided however to include very
few “numbers” in this set of recommendations. We commend to
you many of the budget and financial reports that are available to
you on Synod’s Web site. For now, let us simply work with the
following approximate totals from FY 2006 to partially depict our
distribution challenge:

Total amount of annual revenue reported by our 6,000 congrega-
tions $1,400,000,000

Total amount of annual unrestricted revenue received by our 35
districts $70,000,000

Total amount of annual unrestricted revenue coming to Synod from
the districts $20,000,000

Total amount of restricted revenue to Synod from “the church”
$65,000,000

Corporate Synod’s annual budget $85,000,000

That’s a Good Question

The Preamble of our Synod’s constitution states that the reason
for forming a synodical union is “our Lord’s will that the diversi-
ties of gifts should be for the common profit.” We do certain things
together for the good of all. A crucial question to begin with would
be: WHAT JS IT WE DO TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON
GOOD? If you asked 25 people to answer the above question you
would no doubt get 25 different answers. We believe that some-
how included in all 25 of the answers would be mention of:

(1) World missions (defined as including work in North America),

(2) Preparing and caring for professional church workers (includ-
ing Ecclesiastical Supervision),

(3) Resourcing and caring for synodical congregations and synodi-
cal “partners”, and

(4) Providing opportunities for the expression of Christian compas-
sion toward human needs.

Fifty years ago those four areas of ministry (and the administrative
costs of supporting them) made up the bulk of our Synod’s budget.
When funds were gathered at the congregational level and shared
through support of “district/Synod” it was rightfully understood that
the congregations were counting on the national Synod to manage
these four national and worldwide ministries for the “common good”
of the whole church. However, even then the districts were doing a
good deal of ministry in each of the above four areas using a portion
of contributed unrestricted congregational dollars.

Resolution 4-07 from the 2004 synodical convention has called
for a new funding model for these “common good” activities since
the formerly “unified budget” approach has now been replaced
with a restricted/unrestricted model of distributing support dollars.
Defining what “common good” activities we agree to do together
as a Synod is becoming more and more difficult.

In 2001-2002 representatives of the Board of Directors and the
Council of Presidents worked on a plan that isolated $11,000,000
of the Synod’s $85,000,000 budget as the very minimum “common-
good” activities. This was the amount of the national budget that

was necessary to support bylaw and convention mandated adminis-

tration, ecclesiastical supervision, debt repayment, and national
communications. Under this plan most of the work of the above four

activities (Missions, Higher Education, Congregational Services,
and Human Care—$74,000,000) was to be funded by direct con-
gregational and individual gifts and/or from fees and grants avail-
able after the $1 1,000,000 of “basic” common-good ministries were
funded. This plan did not find final support because “members of
the Board believe that two of the main reasons for the founding of
the Synod were not addressed, namely higher education and mis-
Sions” (Quote from 2004 Convention Workbook).

It is interesting to note that the original 1847 constitution of the
Synod listed as the “reasons for forming a synodical organization”
many of the duties we now equate with administration and ecclesi-
astical supervision. And yet, we are fighting an uphill battle to com-
municate the importance of supporting this administrative and
supervisory role of Synod when the culture all around us denigrates
the institution, and in this society of global communication it seems
that denominational structure and institutional administration are no
longer needed. And we have even come to discover that for some
church professionals, the greatest need for “Synod” is the preserva-
tion of their pension plan (and not much more than that).

Reality has demonstrated that the four “common good” activi-
ties that most people agree are still done best when we pool to-
gether our resources to accomplish together more than we could
ever do alone, have in the last 30 years been supported more and
more by “direct” giving. There is still joyful support for the fol-
lowing four areas of ministry:

World & American Missions vigorously making known the love
of Christ

2007 Convention Workbook