LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 173

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADMINISTRATION 173

Districts have been serviced in special projects by various
synodical staffers.

How do synodical leaders on the national and District level
evaluate the work of the Board of Stewardship and staff? A
1974 questionnaire prepared by board chairman Charles Bosma
furnished some answers to this question, based on responses
from 77 percent of synodical and District leaders queried: 74
percent of the respondents agreed that the Board of Steward-
ship adequately fulfills its duties as outlined by the synodical
Handbook: 90 percent were against a hypothetical proposal to
phase the Board of Stewardship out of existence and give its
responsibilities to a subcommittee of the Synod's Board of Direc-
tors: 72 percent disagreed with another hypothetical proposal
to limit the functions of the Board of Stewardship to raising
money for the synodical program.

B. Challenges and Problems

1. A definite trend in District executive staffing has been to
assign several responsibilities to each executive. In the past.
stewardship often was the sole responsibility of an executive.
Now most stewardship staffers also have responsibilities in other
areas of ministry. As a result, less time and effort and budget
are devoted to stewardship cultivation on the District level
than previously.

2. Budget cutbacks on the synodical level have meant a
drastic reduction in materials produced—compared with 10
years ago—and a lack of national staff to consult with and
develop in-depth programs with District leaders. The trend
today is to customized programs. This has definite merits. But
much good work by Districts is lost for possible use by other
Districts because there is no one on national staff assigned to
coordinate the sharing of programs and ideas. The Board of
Stewardship and staff definitely favor a more service-oriented
style of supporting District operations. We would rather serve
than prescribe answers. At present, however, we do not have
the staffing or the funding to serve districts in the way in which
they are asking synodical staff to serve.

Conclusions

1. Controversy and conflict within our Synod have affected
almost every part of its mission and ministry during the past
2 years. The ministry of the Board of Stewardship is no excep-
tion. A prime example is the area of funding the church's
ministry.

Reduction in initially anticipated income for the present
fiscal year reflects economic problems, a reordering of mission
priorities, and synodical problems.

Of these three factors, the economy may not be as great a
factor in giving as some persons would think — other denomina-
tions experienced an increase in contributions in 1974. The
possible reordering of mission priorities will be discussed shortly.
The third factor, synodical problems, has resulted in definite
repercussions.

The Gospel motivation for giving is being clouded by quarrel-
ing and disruptions. The dispute in the Board for Missions has
caused some people to question how their offerings for missions
are being used. Money is going to other mission agencies,
including some with no connections to our Synod or its sister
overseas churches. The climate of mistrust has dampened enthu-
siasm to the point where mission giving by members of the
Synod is definitely affected consciously and unconsciously.
Unless the climate is changed, funding of the chuch's mission
and ministry will continue to be a difficult and possibly “no win”
situation.

2. Coupled with the economic and synodical problems has
been a possible reordering of mission priorities by congrega-
tions and Districts. This possibility has been discussed in the
section on fund procurement. Restructuring of synodical func-
tions and subsequent reduction of staff as proposed by some also
may reflect a reordering.

Such a restructuring is not opposed by the Board of Steward-
ship. so long as the present functions of stewardship ministry
assigned to it are carried out. However, if resource personnel
and programs are to be concentrated on the District rather than
the synodical level, then this decision shoud be made by the
entire Synod. The Board of Stewardship feels that such a deci-
sion should be made by a mission and ministry convocation —
a gathering of congregational as well as District and synodical

leaders. Such a gathering would adopt a strategy for mission and
ministry in the Synod for the coming years. That strategy then
would be implemented through any restructuring of functions
and staffing necessary on the District. regional. or synodical
levels.

3. A renewed understanding is needed of stewardship as the
ministry (service) through which a Christian uses life and all of
its resources for Christ’s mission. There is a danger that steward-
ship will be equated with church fund raising. ignoring the
cultivation which views the giving function of stewardship as
a grace (or gift) of God. motivated by love instead of guilt, duty.
or some other reason. Stewardship ministry is not a once-a-year
religious United Way or churchly March of Dimes appeal. If
stewardship is equated with fund raising, the church can be
equated with other charitable organizations. And the church,
motivated by and proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ.
is much more than a charitable organization.

4. The total stewardship ministry of our Synod involves
not only spending at the synodical level. We need to find a way
to involve Districts and congregations more directly in the
entire budget-setting process. since that process reflects mission
priorities. The meeting of the Fiscal Review Commission in
March 1975 was a step in the right direct’ »n. The proposed mis-
sion and ministry convocation (point 2) is another move in this
direction.

5. There is a danger that a report which emphasizes chal-
lenges and problems can tend to be very negative reading. Since
we have tried to be realistic. there is a positive dimension which
needs mentioning.

That dimension is the potential in the congregations of our
Synod for generous. love-motivated giving for the mission of the
church. The Spirit has moved mightily among us in the past.
and we remain confident that He can and will move among us
in the future. That movement could mean more generous sup-
port for the church's ministry and mission.

We cannot dictate to the Spirit how or when He should move.
We do know that God never asks more of us than He gives to us.
We do hope and trust in God. knowing that He has given us the
gifts—in money and other ways-—to do His “job” of mission. Our
Lord invites us in love to join Him.

This report has grappled with the challenges and problems
facing our Synod in its stewardship ministry, as well as reporting
the activities of the Board of Stewardship. We invite the mem-
bers of the Synod to join in facing these problems, confident that
the Spirit can take these problems and turn them into oppor-
tunities for ministry. We pray His blessing upon the considera-
tion of this report and the ministry through you and us which it
reflects.

Board of Stewardship
Charles Bosma, Chairman
A. Lorenz Grumm. Stewardship Counselor

4-09

Report of Board of Managers —
Worker Benefit Plans

The Board of Managers— Worker Benefit Plans. ever mind-
ful of its assignment from the Synod and of its tremendous
responsibility to the workers in the Synod, continues to expend
every effort to render the best possible service to these workers
and to maintain the high level of benefits of the Plans in as
economical a fashion as is possible. To this end regular sessions
are held with the Plans’ consultants. who are well versed in
current benefit programming.

Since all workers and employers enrolled in the Worker
Benefit Plans receive a regular quarterly bulletin which informs
them of all current Plans’ changes as well as annual financial
data, this report to the convention is intended to cover only the
highlights of the activities of the past 2 years.

Administration

During the past biennium two first-time appointee board
members whose terms expired were reappointed to an addi-
tional term of 4 years. Another board member. Rev. Carl H.
Bensene. found it necessary to resign for health reasons. We
express to him our appreciation for his service. In his place