# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S495 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION Resolved, That Bylaw 3.3.1, regarding the service of the President of the Synod, be revised as follows to incorporate the new language of assisting capacity rather than the now-removed constitutional category of assistant pastor: PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING 3.3.1 The President of the Synod shall be a full-time executive and shall serve as a voting member of the Board of Directors of the Synod. (a) He shall not be in charge of a congregation or hold a chair at any educational institution but may be called as an assistant pastorto a congregation in an assisting capacity, provided such services do not interfere with his official duties as President. (b) He shall, with the approval of the Board of Directors of the Synod, be empowered to engage sufficient staff to carry out the duties of his office. and be it further Resolved, That congregations and district presidents be urged to arrange for those regularly assisting congregations with pastoral service to be called, installed, and rostered as such; and be it finally Resolved, That LCMS Rosters & Statistics and the Council of Presidents be directed to coordinate changes to the forms and procedures for multi-congregation parish designation and then to assist congregations in adjusting calls and designations as necessary under these newly-adopted bylaws. Commission on Constitutional Matters Ov. 9-13 To Retain the Current Delegate Representation to District Convention of Pastor-Congregation-Parish WHEREAS, There is no biblical mandate for conventions and delegate representation for circuit, district, or Synod; and WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions entries concerning a congregation’s right to call its own pastor have no bearing or influence on delegate representation to conventions; and WHEREAS, The system of voting in The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, which provides for equal representation of clergy and laity at district and synod conventions has proven itself as a wise and effective system throughout the history of our Synod; and WHEREAS, This system of equal representation of clergy and laity at district and Synod conventions was carefully considered and clearly defined from the earliest days of our Synod as Carl S. Mundinger details in his book Government in Missouri [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947], 178) with the following examples: May 18, 1846 minutes from the Constitution Committee which read, “The clerics must never exceed the voting strength of the laymen.” June 2, 1846 minutes from the Constitution Committee which further establish the principle of equal representation stating, “it is decided that the paragraph on which the equality of votes is to be mentioned should remain so.” (The German word Stimmengleichheit meaning “voice of the same unit, a tie, equal number” being used to identify the number of voting delegates lay and clergy.) and WHEREAS, Mundinger further emphasizes, “This latter provision came from the voting members of Trinity congregation, St. Louis, 495 as we have noted above. It was the result of their experience with Stephan; and it was introduced to maintain the balance of power between clergy and laity” (ibid., 182); and WHEREAS, This system does allow fair representation of multipoint parishes at district conventions by allowing them to jointly choose a representative from among their members; and WHEREAS, This system also allows for fair representation of congregations with more than one pastor at district conventions by allowing them to choose one representative for their parish; therefore be it Resolved, That the Iowa District East in convention memorialize Synod in convention to re-affirm and retain its current practice of delegate representation at district conventions of one lay vote per parish along with one pastoral vote per parish. Iowa East District Ov. 9-14 To Amend Synod’s Constitution to Allow All Member Congregations Voice and Vote Rationale The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) Constitution Article V A introduces the undefined term “parish” when describing which members hold voting rights in the Synod, which creates an internal inconsistency, to wit: “All organized congregations that have joined the Synod hold voting membership. At the meetings of the districts of the Synod every congregation or parish [emphasis added] is entitled to two votes, one of which is cast by the pastor and the other by the lay delegate.” The term parish has been interpreted multiple times by opinions of Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) and rulings by the Secretary of the Synod as being “two or more congregations served by one pastor.” However, in other places in Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws, the term parish is used as an adjective to refer to an individual (i.e. “parish nurse”) serving a single congregation. The practical effect of this inconsistency is that it makes the first sentence of Const. Art. V A above untrue. It also creates a second class of Synod membership, congregations with no say or stake in membership. This issue has been around for more than 40 years and it is time to put an end to the controversy it generates, which only serves to divide us when the times in which we live demand our unity. The issue on congregation disenfranchisement has taken on more importance in recent years as the process for electing the President of the Synod has changed by allowing individual congregations to vote in a pre-convention process. Not allowing some congregations to participate in this process is not only demoralizing for the congregations involved but removes any incentive for other congregations to become a part of our Synod, particularly if they are small and dependent upon outside support for Word and Sacrament ministry. In reality, the issue centers on district conventions. District conventions do more than vote on things. They are a valuable tool for providing information, support, and fellowship among the leadership within the district. Although strong lay leadership is universally desirable, it is even more essential in those congregations who do not have a full time, dedicated pastor. When one of these congregations is disenfranchised, as is currently the case, there is no incentive for it to send a representative to the 2019 Convention Workbook