Re-structure Has No “Hidden Agenda”

By David S. Luecke

It is my privilege to represent my circuit as an Ohio pastoral delegate to the LCMS 2010 Convention.  As such, I attended the December 11/12 regional meeting to hear and discuss the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance.

The delegate’s job of absorbing and evaluating 51 pages of recommendations, 11 pages of specific word changes in the Constitution and 65 pages of changes in Bylaws is huge.  The decision to present the recommendations in two installments—at two-day regional meetings now and two days added to the convention in July—was wise.

The regional format had early afternoon presentations on the history, the theological basis, and the study process of the Task Force’s work and then a walk through the recommendations.  Late afternoon provided opportunity for questions, both in written form and open mike, followed by district caucuses.  The morning repeated that discussion format and closed with opportunity for the delegates to identify three most important recommendations and three least important, reported table by table.  Those assessments as well as individual questionnaire feedback will be tabulated when the regional meetings are done.

The theological basis for the recommendations were available in a 45 page study document by the Task Force plus a 63 large-page small-type translation of an essay on ‘Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod’ presented by C. F. W. Walther in 1879 to the First Iowa District Convention.  What a sitting marathon that must have been!

Here are some observations I came away with:

There Is No “Hidden Agenda”

The agenda is very explicit in the lengthy explanations for the proposals.  Chairman Dr. Bob Greene asserted that at no time did President Kieschnick call him to say that a specific change should be added or taken out.  In fact, President Kieschnick clearly separated himself from some of the recommendations in an eight page “Response of the President of Synod” provided publicly on the LCMS website December 1. 

One controversial recommendation is that large congregations receive more votes at district conventions while dual parishes also receive a second vote.  Observing that this proposal does not appear to be contributing to a greater spirit of harmony in Synod, President Kieschnick announced his disfavor.  Also, the recommendations did not include consistency in term limits for district presidents.  The President values conflict-reducing consistency throughout the Synod and urged some appropriate uniformity in this matter.

Task Force Leaders Are Trustworthy

I did not observe any tension between delegates and the Task Force panel presenters and explainers:  Rev. Robert Greene, Chair and retired former President of Lutheran Social Services of the South; Rev. Will Sohns, retired former President of the Wyoming District  and long-time member of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, and retired former Ohio District President Rev. David Buegler.

So far as I can tell, all were on the sidelines during the conflicts of the 1970s.  All are strongly mission oriented.  Being retired, none has a personal vested interest in the outcome.  All are conservative in the best theological and churchly sense of the word.

Rev. Will Sohns impressed the delegates by his extensive and detailed recall of historical documents relating to changes in the LCMS constitution over the decades.  He chaired the sub-committee on proposed constitutional changes and explained that the proposed constitutional preamble, mission and purpose amplifications are confessional mission-oriented augmentation and clarification with no change in intent.  The result serves well as an organization statement of purpose for the institution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Now the Action Moves to Floor Committee 8

When the regional meetings are done at the end of February, the Task Force’s job is finished.  27,000 copies of their Final Report have been printed and will be distributed to all rostered workers of the LCMS.

Then begins the work of the 2010 Convention Floor Committee 8 on Planning and Administration.  They are charged with setting the priorities for which recommendations will be presented and in what time order this will be done.  The Commission on Constitutional Matters has declared that the recommendations must be presented in separate sections; it will not be a one-time, all-or-nothing vote.

In addition to the quantity of proposals Floor Committee 8 will present, they have the extra challenge of doing so in a sequence that affects what some of the other convention committees will present.  For instance, if the recommendation is passed to eliminate the current Synod boards in favor of only two new ones, the number of elections to have will be considerably reduced.  Meanwhile the Nominations Committee has the challenge of presenting two sets of names for nomination.

Most Important and Least Important

The closing exercise of the delegate meeting was very instructive.  Each table discussed which three recommendations are the most important at this time and which three do not seem pressing.

For me, there is still lack of clarity about how much the recommended changes are to be financially driven.  It seems the Task Force took the approach that if we are going to make big changes, let’s put everything desirable on the table.  While commendable, that leaves the big question of how much is too much to be tackled at a one-week convention that has a lot of other work to do.  Floor Committee 8 will need wisdom to decide this.

The statement was made in one of the presentations that there is every reason to suppose the unrestricted support of the national office will continue to decline.  The choice is whether to have the inevitable downsizing as part of a well thought out plan or to have Synod’s Board of Directors make cuts year by year in a reactive crisis mode.

To me, a plan is much to be preferred.  Therefore, here is my take on “most important.”

1. Recommendation 18 will realign national ministries around two boards or commissions rather than the present seven program boards.  The savings are of two sorts:  the travel and support of the boards themselves for their meetings, and reduction of the number of staff doing their work. A figure in one of the appendices suggested that reducing the boards could save about $700,000 of expenses annually.  Not printed anywhere but openly discussed is a staff reduction in force of about 40 positions, which could save about $2,000,000 annually.

2. Recommendation 4 is to reconfigure and reduce the number of districts.  Working that out between now and July is clearly “too much,” so the recommendation sets forth a structure for a task force to bring recommendations to the next convention.  In corporate terms, the LCMS needs to cut out overhead wherever possible.  While much of the work of the national boards will be shifted to the districts, the church body through the districts may not be able to afford as much ministry beyond what congregations are doing.  Merging district offices will at a minimum save office support dollars.

3. Recommendation 11 would fix the number of national convention delegates at 650.  Besides less travel and hotel expenses, the savings include the lower cost holding the synod convention in the conference room of a large hotel rather than in a convention center like at St. Louis or Houston.  A figure like $1,300,000 has been discussed.

The Task Force explained that they are not in a position to assign savings to their proposals without knowing which changes will actually be made.  Doing so is an expectation for Floor Committee 8 when they bring their proposed changes to the convention floor.

Pray for wisdom and endurance for the synod leaders and delegates who have an immense amount of controversial work to do before the July convention.