LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 194

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

194 PROGRAM AND FINANCE

while independent of the Synod, fosters the mission and ministry of
the Church...” (The RSOs exist to help further the cause of the Synod,
and for this reason they are formed. They do not, generally, exist first
and then decide that they could raise extra money if they gained RSO
status.)

¢ Regarding districts (Bylaw 4.1.1.1): “A district is the Synod itself per-
forming the functions of the Synod.” (Assessing a yearly fee to the
districts is playing a “shell game” with the money. Districts, facing
less overall funds, would cut programs that are nothing more than
“functions of the Synod” to fund “functions of the Synod” in a dif-
ferent location. Districts were created specifically to more efficiently
carry out the work of the Synod in individual locations. This report
assumes that a central organization can do that work more efficiently.
If that is true, why have districts?)

* Regarding congregations (Art. VIE 2): “Membership of a congrega-
tion in the Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of the
congregation.” (Yet the Synod is recommending taxing congrega-
tions.)

WHEREAS, The task force has failed in its objectives and as-
signed duties, namely, giving scriptural support for funding the sys-
tem it has proposed; and

WHEREAS, The report would unnecessarily interfere with the
fine work of RSOs and would impose additional burdens on the
Concordia Plans and other corporate entities, which already exist to
serve the Synod and her members; and

WuerEAs, Recently published figures on executive salaries in-
dicate that top-level executive officers of the Synod are being given
compensation packages that place them far out of alignment with
the average parish pastor who holds “the highest office in the
church” (Walther, Church and Ministry, Thesis VIII), yet no rec-
ommendation was made that executive salary scales be brought
into line with the honors accorded parish pastors; and

WHEREAS, The report suggests adding two new executive
salaries to the Synod payroll, at a cost of $200,000 per year, while
offering no guarantees that the success of their efforts will be any
better than the success of the Fan Into Flame efforts to raise funds
for Ablaze! which so far have not recouped the startup costs,
(Board of Directors Minutes, May 2006); and

WHEREAS, If the Synod were to demand money from any en-
tity, the advice of C. F. W. Walther would be to withhold funds
from the Synod:

Therefore, the Synod cannot impose taxes, not even a penny. If our

Synod would ever say, “Every congregation must contribute one cent

every year,” the congregations should say, “Not even (half a cent). You

must beg; yes, we'll gladly give to a beggar, but if you try to give us
orders, our friendship is over.”
therefore be it

Resolved, That the Wyoming District Pastors’ Conference
memorialize the Synod to reject the funding proposals outlined in
the report, for the reasons stated previously; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod produce materials showing what per-
centage of its budget is allocated to executive staff and what per-
centage is actually spent “in the field”; and be jit finally

Resolved, That the Synod be encouraged to do as C. F. W.
Walther suggested, begging for the funds and making the case for
the value of the work done by the national Synod to the districts
and congregations of the Synod, and that the districts and congre-
gations of the Synod be encouraged to give in gratitude from the
resources that God has entrusted to them.

Pastors’ Conference
Wyoming District

4-09

To Reject “Funding the Mission” Proposals 8, 9, and 11

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod itself is a
corporate entity formed by Lutheran congregations for the purposes
set out in Art. IIT of the Constitution of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The 23-page “Funding the Mission” report of the
blue ribbon committee formed by Synod President Kieschnick pur-
suant to 2004 Res. 4-07 contains eleven recommendations that
were released in July 2006; and

WHEREAS, Recommendations 8 and 9 therein propose fees on
all corporate entities of the Synod and on 302 Recognized Service
Organizations (RSOs) within the Synod that are recognized as pro-
vided by the Synod Bylaws; and

WHEREAS Recommendation 11 states in part, “Since the days
when a ‘unified budget’ approach to funding the mission is gone,
our Task Force recommends that each congregation of our Synod
receive each year the kind of information that allows them to
re-evaluate the blessings and the responsibilities of Synodical
membership. Years ago many districts offered congregations a
‘suggested amount’ of unrestricted support expected of the congre-
gations. The districts best know the health and potential of the con-
gregations, the historic giving patterns and the challenges of the
congregations. It’s time to go back to that. It is clear we need an
advocate for the district and Synodical need of unrestricted finan-
cial support. It is the recommendation of this Task Form that in-
creasing personal communication through the existing structures
must be improved until there is a change in the existing structures.
In the first years of implementing this effort the Synod/districts
should without any request for money simply share the long list of
benefits derived from Synodical membership. The list is formida-
ble. In future years some basic assumptions of what is expected of
congregations as they covenant with their sister congregations
should be shared. As this process is shared each year (perhaps all
electronically) a set of added values for reasonable support might
be added. If a congregation responds by meeting its financial ex-
pectations then additional services may be provided to those con-
gregations without charge. If a congregation refuses to meet its rea-
sonable financial obligation then it should be subject to a ‘fee for
services’ expectation for the many services it is receiving and yet
not acknowledging with some degree of responsible fiscal support.
The districts and the Synod should work together to implement
these changes”; and

WHEREAS, Members of member congregations of the Synod
have indeed most generously supported corporate entities of the
Synod and corporate Synod, although monies to corporate Synod
from districts have declined; and

WHEREAS, There is adequate evidence that member congrega-
tions and other entities are likely to willingly give greater support
to Synod when the trust that is lacking (see page 12 of the report) is
restored; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod reject recommendations 8, 9, and 11

in the report “Funding the Mission.”
Faith
Chesapeake, VA

4-10

To Oppose Funding Requirement

Whereas, Art. VI (Conditions of Membership) of the Constitu-
tion of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not state that
member congregations of the Synod must give funds directly to the
Synod in order to acquire and hold membership; and

WHEREAS, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first President of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod wrote, “If our Synod would ever say,
‘Every congregation must contribute one cent every year,’ then the
congregations should say, ‘Not even half a cent. You must beg; yes,
we’ll gladly give to a beggar, but if you try to give us orders, our
friendship is over. Because whether much or little—if we have con-
ceded you a penny this year, you can demand a dollar next year, and
even more in two years; for we would have then given you the right,
the power, to tell us what to do”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention declare its agreement
with Dr. Walther in this matter and reaffirm that it is not necessary
(nor is it a condition of membership) for member congregations of