LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 15–16, 2024, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

In view of the limited training and formation of SMPs, 2013 Res. 5-04B resolved “[t]hat district presidents
not approve specific ministry sites which could reasonably be expected to support a general pastor or sites
where a minister of religion–commissioned could fulfill the duties” (Proc., 140). This restriction, still in
effect, underscores and circumscribes the authority and responsibility of district presidents to limit the
calling or service of SMPs to ministry contexts for which their training adequately prepares them and for
which there is no option of a more fully trained minister. The convention adopted this resolution citing the
prior report of the SMP task force, as follows: “Special circumstances (e.g. small parishes which cannot
afford a pastor) exist. Flexibility is vital as the church fulfills her vocational calling to preach the Gospel to
everyone everywhere. While the church cannot maintain her theological integrity, fidelity, and courage in
these bewitching times unless she has an overall well-trained and doctrinally steeped ministerium, special
circumstances warrant less-trained pastors so the means of grace can be delivered by a called and ordained
pastor. Therefore the task force recommends the retention of the SMP program for special circumstances.”
(id., 139–40).
The SMP program remains an exceptional path to the exercise of the pastoral office and not the ordinary
one. To ignore this distinction is to violate the very provisions by which the SMP program was conceived
and for which it was established. Clearly, the training ordinarily provided for an SMP does not prepare him
adequately for every type of parish call, even for every one that exercises pastoral oversight only within the
parish context. As Bylaw 2.13.1 and the fifth resolve of 2013 Res. 5-04B make clear, “the respective district
president remains responsible for determining the appropriateness of the specific ministry” (id., 139), a
responsibility that must be undertaken with deliberate care and wise judgment about the content and
adequacy of SMP training for the responsibility and authority to be exercised within a particular call to a
particular parish. (The Council of Presidents as such [or as the Board of Assignments, Bylaw 3.10.1.3] may
also have a role with respect to the definition of such contexts, at least initially, as these men are “placed
by the Council of Presidents into a specific Word and Sacrament ministry context,” [Bylaw 2.13.1].)
Finally, while the question fundamentally turns on the interpretation of Bylaw 2.13.1, the SMP program is
set forth by 2007 Res. 5-01B, and it is also incumbent on the commission to weigh the significance of this
resolution (and others) relative to the question at hand. To the commission, the training of an SMP as
described in the enabling and subsequent resolutions and in the SMP Policy Manual (2021) of Concordia
Seminary, which the commission examined, does not appear to contemplate service at the head of a parish
staff including a school or professional church worker auxiliary offices (commissioned ministers). That the
preparation of a typical SMP 2 is less in some respects than that of a commissioned minster is reflected by
the prohibition of 2013 Res. 5-04B. A careful judgment is required of the district president as to a particular
ministry context (call, parish) and to some extent to a particular man, whether the service of an SMP in a
given capacity is appropriate. This judgment is unique to every case, and is not the purview of the
commission, but of the district president.
The commission offers that the SMP program has been addressed in some fashion by each convention since
its adoption in 2007 and that, as it continues to account for an increasing proportion of ordained minsters
in the Synod—which, in local areas, has become significant— elements of its implementation continue to
present challenging unclarities and require district presidents to exercise significant judgment with little
clear and concrete guidance. Such is the genesis of these questions and of this opinion, which had to be
rendered on some very fine historical distinctions of few Bylaw words. This is perhaps itself a call for the
convention to assess and clarify yet again.
Question 1:

Is there any circumstance under Bylaw 2.13.1 in which an SMP might have supervisory
authority over a commissioned worker?

Some particular SMPs, of course, already possess certification as a commissioned minster. While the particular SMP
may thereby have the training expected of a commissioned minister and ought not by virtue of additional SMP training
be excluded from commissioned ministry roles, it should not be presumed that this combination constitutes adequate
preparation for pastoral supervision of commissioned ministry in a congregation.

2

CCM Minutes – March 15–16, 2024 – Page 15