# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S163
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
demonstrated that this basic principle is inadequate or unworkable
in terms of enabling the Synod to function, or some other form of
organization is proposed that can be demonstrated to enable the
Synod to function better, it is far better to leave this basic principle
of franchise intact.
At the same time, there may be room for improvement in how
this franchise is carried out. The committee has heard and acknowledges a significant feeling of “disenfranchisement” among a very
significant part of the individual roster of the Synod, as expressed
in some emotional remarks at the 2019 Synod convention. Is the
advice of the advisories being welcomed and given full consideration by those who do exercise the franchise? Are their voices
afforded opportunities and consideration commensurate with the
importance of the auxiliary offices they hold and with the immense
value to the church of the servants holding them?
In the Pfarrgemeinde polity, the votes belong to the congregation and are cast—in one part by the preachers and in the other by
the hearers—as an act not of power but of service. The ordained
and the laity are not represented as two voting blocs, but the voting
power of each congregation (or group of congregations) is exercised, in one part, by the one responsible for the total Office of the
Ministry and in the other part by one representing the laity, for and
on behalf of whom the ministry is carried out in their place. Voting
in the church is not to be understood as the exercise of individual or
class power, over against that of others, but an exercise of care for
the whole so that common goods may be for the common benefit
(1 Cor. 12:4–31; Constitution Preamble).
The voice of advisories—the scope of which category goes far
beyond simply teachers or commissioned ministers—is intended
to inform such a vote, to be heard, carefully considered, and taken
into account at every level, with those who exercise the vote on
behalf of the member congregations as fully informed of the needs
and insights of the whole church, including its auxiliary offices and
candidates for and emeriti of ordained and commissioned ministry.
As with many aspects of the Synod’s polity, there is probably a
significant opportunity for the broad reengagement of the Synod’s
member congregations and their delegates in this listening and reflecting process—and, as we shall see, for the broad reengagement
of the Synod’s advisory members, as well.

PART II: Realization of the Synod’s Concept
of Advisory Member Input
As noted in the first part of this report, the Synod has, from its
inception, welcomed the participation of advisory individual members, originally including those pastors who had joined the Synod
but were not voting representatives of member congregations, candidates for the ministry, and teachers. These came to include, as the
various other categories of commissioned ministry developed over
time, all members in these categories as well.

Taking stock of the individual (advisory) membership of the Synod
In considering the roles of advisory members of the Synod [4]
in relation to district and Synod conventions, it is instructive to
consider how many there are and how widely they are distributed
in the Synod. The table below shows the number of congregational
voting delegates (pastor and lay) and the number of individual advisory delegates of the various types in each district. Three columns
provide ratios at the far right: first is the ratio of individual advisory
to voting delegates, then are the ratios of all commissioned to all

163

advisory delegates, both for all advisories and for all actively serving advisories.
Taking all district conventions collectively, there are 1.77 potential individual advisory delegates for each voting delegate in
the Synod, 70 percent of which advisories are commissioned ministers (of the advisory ministers actively in service, commissioned
ministers constitute 82 percent). Note, however, that these ratios
vary widely from district to district. South Wisconsin District has
3.12 potential advisory delegates per voting delegate, 80 percent
of which are commissioned; North Dakota has 0.57, and only 53
percent of these are commissioned. In considering proposals for
changes to how commissioned ministers interact with their district
conventions, it will be important to take this degree of variation
into account. In districts with very large numbers of advisory ministers and very low advisory member attendance at present, it has
been suggested that a scheme for designating certain specific representatives to attend on a proportional basis (like that used for the
Synod convention, Bylaw 3.1.3.1) may be preferable to the current
arrangement, but this may not be necessary or desirable in many
districts with fewer advisories and relatively higher participation
rates. Circuits, too, are not likely good “units” for commissioned
representation, given the very uneven distribution of commissioned ministers across the circuits of the Synod.
While district convention advisory delegate attendance rates
were not readily available to the committee, the table will provide
each district a means of evaluating the rate of attendance of its
advisory members (active, candidate, emeritus, commissioned,
and otherwise) at its conventions. It is suspected to be the case
that at least in districts with many potential advisories, relatively
few regularly attend. While there may be reasons for this, Synod
bylaws do expect the participation, apart from a valid excuse, of
all advisory members of the districts in their district conventions
(Bylaw 4.2.3). If the advisories—especially those active in ministry, principally in the district’s schools—are not in attendance,
why not? What can be done to engage the teachers and other commissioned ministers in what is hoped and intended to be a time of
vital importance for life together in Word, confession, and mission
(Bylaw 4.2.1)?
It was also noted in the committee’s discussions that approximately 28 percent of teachers in Synod schools are presently rostered; including emeriti, rostered teachers comprise approximately
49 percent of teachers related to the schools. The majority of teachers are lay (i.e., not commissioned) and therefore have the opportunity (if members of Synod-member congregations) to serve as
delegates, which commissioned teachers do not—part of the conundrum of commissioned teachers’ “advisory-only” status.

Parish and circuit
Constitutionally, the lay and pastoral delegates together represent each parish (Pfarrgemeinde) and its total ministry in a manner that reflects the connection of Synod’s polity with the Synod’s
doctrines and principles of Church and Ministry. A school or other
parish ministry involving commissioned workers is an extension of
that congregation’s ministry. The existing parish voting delegates
should be representing the interests of the school and the school’s
workers. How often do the delegates meet, before and after district
conventions, with those represented, to discuss issues in ministry
in general and issues before the convention in particular? At least
for district conventions, where representation is on a direct parish
basis, that ought to be the case.
2023 Convention Workbook