LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 308

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

308 NATIONAL/DISTRICT SYNOD RELATIONS

Wrereas, The SELC District has carried out this ministry in an
efficient and effective manner; and

Wuereas, The pastors and congregations of the SELC have en-
joyed this relationship as a nongeographical District; and

Whereas, The SELC District has acted in compliance with all
aspects of the original merger agreement; and

Whereas, The SELC District has demonstrated that we are
“walking together” with neighboring congregations, geographic
Districts, and the Synod at large: and

WHEREAS, At the convention of the SELC District in the year
2000, the delegates unanimously affirmed the desire of the SELC
District to remain a nongeographical District; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod gath-
ered in convention in the year of our Lord 2001 affirm the desires
of the SELC District to remain a nongeographical District and con-
tinue this relationship as District and Synod indefinitely.

St. Lucas
St. Louis, MO

8-81

To Change Bylaws re Election of
Delegates to Synod Conventions

Please refer to the Report of the Task Force on National/Dis-
trict Synod Relations for the text of this overture, p. 121.

8-82

To Change Constitution re Delegate
Representation to District Conventions

WuereEAS, An organized congregation of the Synod is a sepa-
rate self-governing entity regardless of whether it has its own pas-
tor or calls one in cooperation with one or more other organized
congregations; and

Wuereas, According to Art. V A of the Synod’s Constitution,
“All organized congregations that have joined the Synod hold vot-
ing membership”; and

WHEREAS, Each organized congregation casts its own lay votes
in nominating Circuit Counselors (Bylaw 3.05 a) and in electing
Circuit delegates to synodical conventions (Bylaw 5.11 a); and

WHEREAS, The current practice of limiting lay delegates to Dis-
trict conventions to one lay delegate per parish in a multicongre-
gation parish is inconsistent with Art. V A of the Synod’s Consti-
tution and the above-mentioned Bylaws, and with the principles of
self-government of organized congregations. and therefore leaves
the congregations that have no delegate disenfranchised; therefore
be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention amend the second sen-
tence of Art. V, 11 Section A, Voting Members, by deleting the
words “or parish” and adding a new sentence as follows:

PRESENT WORDING

All organized congregations thal have joined the Synod hold
voting membership. At the meetings of the Districts of the
Synod every congregation or parish is enlitled 1o two votes, one
of which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay del-
egate. At the meetings of the Synod a number of congregations
shall form a group which shall be represented by two voting del-
egales, one a pastor and one a lay delegate.

PROPOSED WORDING

All organized congregalions that have joined the Synod hold
voting membership. At the meetings of the Districts of the
Synod every congregation is entitled to two votes, one of which
is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay delegate. In a
mullipoint parish, the pasior will cast only one vote. At the
meetings of the Synod a number of congregations shall form a
group that shall be represented by two voting delegates, one a
pasior and one a lay delegate;

2001 Convention Workbook

and be it further

Resolved, That any changes needed in the Synod’s Bylaws to
accommodate them to agree with this amendment to the Synod’s
Constitution also be made.

Circuit K (Freeman Circuit) Forum
South Dakota District

8-83

To Change Delegate Representation to Synodical
Conventions

WHEREAS, The current system of assigning delegates to the syn-
odical convention is skewed in favor of smaller congregations;
therefore be it

Resolved, That all congregations be represented by one pastoral
delegate; and be it further

Resolved, That all congregations be represented by one lay del-
egate for every 250 baptized members up to 500 baptized members
and one additional delegate for every additional 500 baptized mem-
bers.

Trinity
Hudson, WI

8-84

To Return to Historical Delegate Election Formula

WHEREAS, The final report of the Task Force on National/Dis-
trict Synod Relations is seriously deficient in the area of the elec-
tion of delegates to synodical conventions. The task force proposal
changes the formula based on confirmed members. placing more
emphasis on the size of congregations than has been done in the
past and removing the emphasis from the fact that congregations
and not communicant members are the building blocks of the
Synod; and

WuerEAS, The task force properly concludes that no changes
need to be made for District conventions. One pastoral and one lay
delegate from each congregation is the proper way, “since every
congregation has equal standing in the number of voting dele-
gates.” It also notes that this is in accordance with the synodical
Constitution, Art. V A; and

WHEREAS, The report continues, “While the same kind of indi-
vidual congregation representation at synodical conventions may
be desirable, such an arrangement would be almost impossible to
implement in practice.” The ideal is that each congregation is rep-
resented by a pair of votes: one pastoral and one lay. In 1874 the
Synod changed from every congregation having a pair of delegates
to a pair of delegates representing a group of 2 to 7 congregations:
and

WHEREAS, There was no consideration given to the relative size
of the congregations, just that congregations would be grouped to-
gether to send a pair of voting delegates: and

WHEREAS, Two reasons easily explain the reason that decision
was made by the Synod in 1874. First, the conventions were held in
churches and the number of delegates was definitely a considera-
tion. Grouping churches together reduced the number of delegates
al each convention; and

WHEREAS, Second, as the LCMS spread outwards from Mis-
souri, travel distances and the length of time to travel by “horse and
buggy” caused new problems. Grouping area churches together
made the vacant pulpits less numerous as pastors and laymen made
the trek to the conventions and back. Also, clusters of congrega-
tions were most probably evident across the country. Congrega-
tions relatively close to each other could get together and send a
pair of delegates; and

WHEREAS, Neither of these reasons concerned the fact that any
one church should have more or less voting power than any other
church. Size of a given congregation was not a factor. In 1893 the
number of congregations grouped together for a pair of voting del-