# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2026_S153
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

4

would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums,
district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact
circuits that have for other reasons a low ratio of installed pastors to congregations. These results can be
detailed for the task force at some point if there is interest.

5

7. Codependent Bounds for Electoral Circuit Formation (“Relieved Model” )

6

At least one overture has proposed codependent bounds on electoral circuit size, allowing a circuit with a
surplus of confirmed members to exist with a deficit of congregations. The inverse, to allow a circuit with a
surplus of congregations to exist with a deficit of confirmed members, has more potential to address the bulk
of current exceptions. Suppose one such model (of many possible) is defined as follows:

1
2
3

7
8
9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18

5
6
7
8
9
10

1,500
≤7
1,450
8
1,400
9
1,350
10
1,300
11
1,250
12
confirmed
1,200
13
members
congregations
1,150
14
if it has
1,100
15
1,050
16
1,000
17
950
18
900
19
850
≥ 20

While far more complicated than the “rectangular” rule we have today, this “relieved rule” has the benefit of
allowing regular “relieving” of the membership relieving for circuits well in excess of the number of
congregations and, conversely, in the congregation parameter for circuits well in excess of the required
number of confirmed members. Figure 8 shows graphically the range of circuits (here, formed using Max-P),
targeting 2029 compliance, as described above. This is a mathematically more detailed version of an
eminently reasonable specification of electoral circuits of ages past, that “Large congregations shall form
small circuits, and small congregations shall form large circuits” (1960 Bylaw 1.51), allowing the relatively
larger circuits, in terms of either congregations or confirmed members, to be relatively smaller in the other

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

dimension. Recall Figure 4, which shows how many of the 2023 exceptions (and potential 2026 and 2029
exceptions, if nothing is done) fall within the “relieved wings” opened by the relaxed model. This approach
has the benefit of not moving the “lower left” corner of the “acceptable domain” (which remains at 7
congregations and 1,500 confirmed members). Note that different regions use the “space” differently.
Only 78% of 2023 circuits are likely to meet present confirmed membership requirements for the 2026
convention, and 69% for 2029 and 59% for 2032 (see Table 2). Were current requirements to be replaced with
the “relieved” model (applying the same model of annual change used in Table 2), 88% of 2023 circuits
would meet requirements in 2026, 21 80% in 2029 (64% non-geographic, 71% ESE, 74% WSW, 83% CEN and
GL, 87% GP), and 71% in 2032 (57% WSW, 64% non-geographic, 64% ESE, 72% CEN, 77% GL, 85% GP).
Considering Max-P formed circuits optimized to deliver maximum representation but targeting compliance
in 2029 (compare Table 4), the relieved model could be used to form an approximate maximum of 593
electoral circuits, an increase of 7% relative to those formed “ideally” using current metrics and of 11%
relative to actual 2023 circuits. Of these circuits, 90% would likely remain compliant for 2032 (78% of nongeographic, 82% ESE, 87% WSW, 88% CEN, 94% GP, 96% GL).
The “relieved” model thus has a lower potential for convention growth than any of the alternative models
considered in Table 4 except for the not very useful 6 congregation/1500 confirmed member model and a
much more stable “ideal,” with a much greater proportion of circuits remaining compliant for the next
convention. By offering to accommodate the (numerically) most “reasonable” of the current exceptions for
at least the next few conventions, while avoiding the potential for explosive representation growth, this
model—complicated though it may be to explain, relative to what we have today—may show some promise.
A concise statement of the “relieved” rule using a piecewise function would be as follows (m being the
number of confirmed members and c being the number of congregations:
1500 + 1500(7 − 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) if 4 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 < 7
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 4 and 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚 � 1500 − 50(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 7)
if 7 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 20
850
if
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 > 20

23

24

8. Basic Contextual Data on the Member Congregations and Pastors in the Circuits of the Synod

25

Geographic factors are significant when considering the reasonability of circuit formation. Figure 9 shows,
for 2023 visitation and electoral circuits, the distribution, by district, of electoral circuit radii, expressed in

26

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

11
12

and

3
4

11

A valid electoral circuit shall consist of no fewer than:

4 congregations
≥ 6000 confirmed
if it has
5
≥ 4500 members
6
≥ 3000
7 congregations
otherwise

1
2

Figure 8: 2023 electoral circuits compared to (left), and Max-P electoral circuits formed using (right), “relieved” model,
targeting 2029 compliance, by region.

13

It is not possible, of course, to apply the relaxed model rule as early as for the 2026 convention, though it could be used as a guide
in judging the “reasonableness” of exceptions in bulk.

21

14

153

2026 Convention Workbook

Figure 9: Minimum radius (miles) of 2023 visitation (left) and electoral circuits (right), by district and region.