LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 229

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

synod structure and governance
recommended: (1) Focus on congregational mission ... and (4) Affirm
congregations as the principal stakeholders in the Synod” (Ibid., pp.
18–19); and
Whereas, The Bredholt & Co. and Epley Research & Consulting
report specifical1y concludes, “Put in place a system of governance
that aims for a wider congregational voice within the functioning of
the Synod [emphasis added]. Give congregations a more direct say
in the affairs of the church. This includes voting on Synod leadership
and key policy issues” (Ibid.); and
Whereas, In its final report, the task force reiterates that congregations “historically are the basic unit of the Synod” and that “structure
is intended to broaden and amplify the participation and voice of the
congregations” (Ibid., p. 21); therefore be it
Resolved, That any recommendation that limits or hinders the participation of congregations be rejected; and be it further
Resolved, That BRTFSSG Recommendation 3 be modified to
read:
Current Recommendation
Modified Recommendation
“… Because circuit counsel- “… Since circuit counselors
ors are the ecclesial extension serve as connections beof district presidents, the task tween the circuit congregaforce recommends that circuit tions and the district, circuit
counselors be nominated by counselors are elected by the
district presidents in consulta- member circuit congregation with the respective district tions.”
praesidium.” (p. 23)
and be it further
Resolved, That Recommendation 13 (“Increase Congregational
Participation in the Election of the Synod President and First VicePresident,” p. 33) be adopted; and be it further
Resolved, That Recommendation 16 (p. 36) be modified by eliminating the second sentence as follows: “Congregations are encouraged
to submit overtures to their district conventions through circuit forums
and to the national convention through their district conventions.
Although all submitted overtures shall still be considered, resolutions from circuit forums and district conventions will receive priority
at district and national conventions, respectively.”; and be it finally
Resolved, That all recommendations of the BRTFSSG be reviewed
to maintain the congregational basis of the Synod.
Circuit 2
Southeastern District
8-22

To Retain Congregational Orientation of Synod
Rationale
Proposal 3 of the report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod
Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG) to district conventions rightly
notes, “Congregations are the voting members of the Synod.” This has
been the conception of the Synod since its beginning. A congregation,
defined simply for the purposes of our Synod’s doctrine, is the regular gathering of a called and ordained preacher and his hearers (i.e.,
pastors and laity). This definition is rooted firmly in the confessional
Lutheran definition of the church and ministry (AC V, VII, XIV, and
XXVIII). The beauty of this definition is that the understanding of
the congregation is founded not upon the Law but upon the Gospel,
that is, the local distribution of Christ’s work of salvation in the oral
Word, Baptism, Absolution, and Holy Communion.

229

While it is true that neither the Scriptures nor the Lutheran
Confessions mandate a particular form of church structure and governance, our Synod has used its congregational nature to express
the basic Lutheran understanding of the church and her ministerial
office. The local congregation (i.e., preachers and hearers together) is
divinely mandated and therefore has in itself all the gifts which belong
to the whole church (see Congregation–Synod–Church [CSC], 12 and
13, pp. 11–12). The congregational nature of our Synod has always
been expressed by a governance in convention that represents our congregations equally by pastors and laity. It is in this way, in particular,
that the congregation is the basic unit of Synod (see CSC, 12, p. 12).
The proposals of the BRTFSSG repeatedly verbalize the ideal that
the Synod retain and strengthen its congregational orientation. But
the proposals themselves seriously undermine “the congregational
nature” of our Synod. It must be noted here that none of the enumerated “current problems or deficiencies” are new to the Synod, and
each existed in some form when the Synod’s first Constitution was
written. At the heart of the proposed changes is a program of replacing
this theological definition of the congregation and its governance in
the Synod with a definition based on political ideals that tend toward
the centralization of influence and taking voice away from the local
congregation. We note this pattern in the following proposals of the
BRTFSSG to district conventions:
Proposal 6: “Determine Equitable Congregational Representation
at District Conventions”—This proposal sweeps away congregations
as “the voting members of Synod” and replaces it with a principle of
“equitable representation.” The congregation would be defined by its
numerical membership, and large congregations would be counted
as super-congregations in the structure and governance of Synod
and awarded additional votes at convention. The proposals regarding vacancies and multiple-point parishes should not be designed to
upset the Synod’s historic congregational balance.
Proposal 8: “Determine Congregational Representation to
National Conventions”—The determination of a district’s delegation by counting the membership of its individual congregations flatly
denies that it is the congregations that are “the voting members of
Synod.” The basis for the governance of the Synod, in this radical
change, would be the individual members of a congregation, not the
congregation itself. A related problem in this proposal is the suggestion that districts be allowed to choose delegates in a way that rejects
the current localized (circuit) method of choosing delegates.
“Proposal 9: “Amend the Process of Submitting Overtures to
National and District Conventions”—This proposal prioritizes the
legislative work of the Synod away from the local congregation
toward the larger political entities (e.g., districts). The voice of the
local congregation should be heard as clearly as that of circuits and
districts. Overtures submitted to conventions should be received on
their own merit, regardless of origin.
Proposal 12: “Consider Future District Configuration”—The proposal for forming larger, rather than smaller, districts would remove
the district leadership and supervision farther from the local congregation (both numerically and geographically). The necessary
consequence would also be the further centralization of district and
Synod work away from the local congregation, contrary to the verbalized intention of the BRTFSSG.
These examples suffice to illustrate that the BRTFSSG proposals
signal a fundamental change in the theological and political orientation of our Synod’s structure and governance.
Therefore be it
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 229

4/15/10 2:39 PM