LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 167

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
process for lay and pastoral delegates to sit with advisories and discuss issues of interest before coming to the convention. (Of course,
it might be cautioned that many things—like the post-convention
report to the circuit of the delegates—are codified in Bylaws but
are not pursued uniformly or even generally in the Synod. Previous
attempts at “grassroots listening” have not succeeded in general
practice.)
Some districts send fewer than the allotted number (Bylaw
3.1.3.1) of advisory delegates to the Synod convention. In 2019,
184 commissioned and 58 ordained advisory delegates were permitted by the proportional formula; 111 commissioned and 46
ordained advisory delegates attended the convention. The chart
below shows how many advisory delegates districts sent (y-axis)
relative to how many they were entitled to send (x-axis). (In both
charts, ideally, the points would all be on the x-y diagonal.) Does
this reflect lack of interest on the part of commissioned ministers,
an estimation that participation is not “worth it,” a poor process
for selecting representatives, a lack of support of the role, or some
combination thereof? This seems a valuable conversation to suggest in each district and in commissioned- and ordained-minister
district conferences.

Conclusions to Part II
In evaluating how well the constitutional concept of having advisory members offering advice to the conventions is realized, the
committee noted that the voice afforded to advisories is significant
but not ideally implemented or utilized. Conversations need to be
had—perhaps in a more formal, structured, or expected way—so
that voting representatives in fact are equipped to represent the “total ministry.” It must be acknowledged that we are sinners; voices
may be permitted but not listened to or even treated in a way that
encourages and builds up.
Several voiced a desire to ensure that commissioned workers
“feel valued.” Commissioned ministers, who outnumber ordained
ministers synodwide, care about being regarded as “valued partners
in ministry.” Some are “pretty passionate about the vote.” Some
feel they are “second-class citizens” without a say in Synod or district. There is a feeling that “we struggle to engage lay people, too”
in the collective impact of what happens at convention. “How do
we make conventions edifying for the church and make it visible
that kingdom things are happening here?”
It was felt that one of the best existing opportunities is to encourage more participation of commissioned ministers on floor committees. Both commissioned and lay participation seem to be declining over time, with district presidents and Synod representatives
seeming to play an increasingly dominant role. Asked whether floor
committee roles are perceived as important by advisory delegates, a
commissioned minister noted that “committee work affords much
more than what’s on the floor.” Increasing the number of commissioned ministers involved in the “back and forth” of committee
work would be very valuable, and this is probably the most readily
achievable and potentially richest opportunity for meaningful and
influential input from advisory members of the Synod.
With regard to the “advisory poll” idea practiced in the Northern Illinois District, or a simpler red/green version, this may be an
easy enough thing for a district to try. At the Synod level, the simple
red/green system would not work well. Some other implementation
might be possible by an amendment of the standing rules, although
there would probably be significant technical hurdles. Preparations

167

would have to be made, with extra polling devices and technical
preparation required in advance.
Regarding such mechanisms, however, a danger was noted,
even if remote or secondary—like a danger perceived by some in
the posting of pro/con voting queues at the Synod convention—that
the custom of regular polling in an environment of inadequate debate can result in the diminution of important minority voices. Of
course, parliamentary law is intended to protect both the rights of
the minority (and the character of a deliberative assembly) and the
right of the majority’s mostly agreeable business not to be stymied
by a dilatory minority. The conventions of the district and Synod
are, however, not simply vehicles for expeditious majority rule or
for testing the waters of various constituencies and then voting but
for study and persuasion in the Word of God, for the building of
true and churchly consensus. Numerical polling can give the impression that a collective voice has been heard, possibly at the expense of more important individual minority voices.

Overall Conclusions
Ultimately, the exercise of the franchise in the Synod is not intended to be simply for the decision of issues by the prevalence of
political power but is intended to be the means—once the Word
of God and conscience have had all necessary opportunity to hold
sway, and the needs and concerns of the whole Synod’s union, including its advisory individual membership, have been adequately
heard and considered—for the body to vote for the good of the
churches and the furtherance of their mission. Only then, in the
design of our Synod’s polity, is it time for a matter to be decided
by majority vote.
Votes change things, but voices change minds. Votes often
divide, but a fit word rightly spoken can unite. How, indeed, can
the voting assembly of a district or Synod know how to serve and
supervise ministry if it doesn’t hear from all its ministers, to understand not only what they want but how they think? It is thus
the committee’s hope that their report will be useful to the Synod,
not only in reviewing the historical and theoretical foundations of
its franchise, but also in recognizing and revitalizing for all it is
the “voice, not vote” role—which may not be less than vote, but
more—that advisory individual members, including commissioned
ministers, have always been intended to have in the mechanisms
for governance of the Synod.

Endnotes
1. The German term used, Pfarrgemeinde, is defined in a footnote to the
1847 Constitution as “either one single congregation or the sum of the individual congregations which the pastor serves [bedient], as, in Germany,
the territory in which he serves is called Kirchspiel or Kirchensprengel. The
pastor may serve 3 or 4 or more congregations, locally separated; they are
in relation to him essentially only one congregation.” When the Constitution was translated from the German in 1924, Pfarrgemeinde was translated
as “congregation or parish” to reference situations where a pastor served
either one or more than one congregation. Hereafter “parish” is generally
used as shorthand for “congregation or parish” or Pfarrgemeinde, not to
exclude single-congregation parishes.
2. At its founding and for about the first 120 years, the Synod assumed
that each Pfarrgemeinde (pastor/congregation) had a single pastor who
was responsible for its spiritual care (was “in charge of” the congregation).
If a congregation had more than one clergyman, one was considered the
Prediger (we would say sole or senior pastor) and the others were Hilfsprediger (we would say helper pastors or assistant pastors). In the Trinity Congregation meeting of May 18, 1846, drafters of the LCMS Constitution definitively established the rule that only one pastor per Pfarrgemeinde could
vote for the congregation, and that others sent were only advisory, under the

2023 Convention Workbook