Official Workbook PDF page source text

2026 Convention Workbook

319LIFE TOGETHER

event, or those of congregations further afield from which it is reasonable to assume activity or event attendees may be traveling;

and be it further

Resolved, That circuit visitors, district presidents, and the President of the Synod give special attention to this matter in their advisory and disciplinary roles.

Circuit 14 (Austin)

Minnesota South District

Ov. 4-32

To Amend Bylaw 6.2.2 (a) to Revise Recognized Service Organization Requirement of 100 Percent Synod Board Membership

WHEREAS, The 2016 Synod convention created a task force to review the current structure and recommend the best model for the Synod’s relationship to recognized service organizations (RSOs)

(2016 Res. 4-03B, “To Convene Task Force to Review Recognized Service Organization Program and Bylaws,” Proceedings, 146–47);

and

WHEREAS, The task force was charged with, among other things, “[ensuring] that all recommendations maintain the important relationships with the agencies that are recognized by the LCMS” (2016 Res. 4-03B, Proc., 146); and

WHEREAS, The 2019 Synod convention adopted the recommendation of the task force in Resolution 4-06A, “To Amend

Bylaw Section 6.2 to Revitalize Synod’s Recognized Service

Organization Program” (2019 Proc., 137–42); and

WHEREAS, This resolution thoroughly revised and redefined the structure and expectations of RSOs; and

WHEREAS, An unintended consequence of adopting such a large and sweeping change in a single resolution was that some long - standing RSOs subsequently found themselves no longer qualified;

and

WHEREAS, The language of Bylaw 6.2.2 (a), adopted in 2019 Res. 4 -06A, states that any witness service organization (a new category) must now have 100 percent of its board of directors holding membership in a congregation of the Synod or its partner churches; and

WHEREAS, An organization involved in mission or service in areas without Synod representation, or that desires to expand into regions without Synod congregations, would find it invaluable to recruit board members who better understand the mission context;

and

WHEREAS, This requirement has forced RSOs to choose between proudly partnering and affiliating with the Synod or pursuing the mission goals for which they exist; therefore be it

Resolved, That Bylaw 6.2.2 (a) be amended as follows, so that a witness service organization may have board membership of at least two-thirds members from congregations of the Synod or its partner churches;

PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING

6.2.2 Policies shall distinguish the three classes of recognized service organization, with criteria, procedures, and benefits appropriate to each, further distinctions being drawn within the categories as needed:

(a) A witness service organization , under the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions, engages in Word or Word-and-Sacrament ministry (including chaplaincy), religious media/programming, mission society activity, support of specific missions, mission - and-ministry training, church worker professional development, church worker care, or other work directly related to the church’s proclamation. A witness service organization is governed solely by Synod (or partner church) congregations or a board comprising solely members, at least two -thirds of whom are members of member congregations of the Synod (or its partner churches).

(b) An educational service organization … (c) A mercy service organization … and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention commend the work of the many and various service organizations and their support of the Gospel proclamation; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod in convention express the earnest desire that longtime and faithful RSOs not be needlessly severed from affiliation with the Synod.

Michigan District

Ov. 4-33

To Promote Transparency and Accountability for Recognized Service Organizations and To Allow Certain Educational Institutions to Be Recognized

WHEREAS, The Synod grants recognized service organizations (RSOs) numerous privileges, including the ability to call rostered workers; and

WHEREAS, Not all categories of RSOs are required to have 100 percent Synod boards, even though such boards can issue divine calls to rostered workers, which is an incoherent situation; and

WHEREAS, Although RSOs are required to operate in harmony with Synod doctrine and practice and maintain nonprofit status, there is no standardized public reporting for finances, governance changes, or program outcomes required beyond voluntary submission or Synod request ; therefore, RSOs not required to file tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service can operate without routinely publishing even unaudited financials, conflict -of-interest disclosures, or compensation information (“ Why LCMS RSOs Need Greater Transparency and Accountability —and How Ad Crucem RSO Explorer Might Help, ” Ad Crucem News , Jan. 9, 2026, adcrucem.news); and

WHEREAS, The Synod recognizes RSOs for a five- year term, after which they may reapply. Yet there is no consistent periodic review process that includes doctrinal conformity checks, governance review, or financial accountability benchmarks.

Without a transparent evaluation cycle, the system relies heavily on occasional voluntary compliance rather than routine and systematic verification.

Moreover, the criteria by which an RSO’s doctrinal alignment and programmatic harmony are assessed aren’t publicly codified, leaving evaluat ors and stakeholders guessing about expectations and enforcement; and

WHEREAS, When a charity carries the Synod imprimatur, despite the Synod’s disclaimers about endorsement and responsibility, individuals and congregations often assume that the organization represents the Synod’s values, theology, and internal controls. Yet in practice, RSOs are independent, but their internal decisions, partnerships, and public engagements can reflect back on the Synod without clear accountability; therefore be it