LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 157

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15

Through the period 1994–2024, the confirmed membership of the Synod has been decreasing at a generally
accelerating rate, with some regional variation. Figure 5 shows the triennial rate of confirmed membership
change throughout the period for each district and region (these data are presented to show the trend using
LOESS, or “locally-weighted scatterplot smoothing”). The confirmed membership of the Synod as a whole
was experiencing 2% triennial loss in 2003, 4% in 2011, 6% in 2016, 8% in 2020, and 7% in 2024. These rates
fluctuate regionally; in 2019 and 2020, the WSW region experienced 11% triennial loss rates; presently it has
dropped to 6% (but with increasing lag in reporting, which can render the rate artificially low); at present,
all regions have triennial loss rates between 5.5% and 7.6%. At a triennial loss rate of 7%, an electoral circuit
of 1,613 confirmed members at the time of one convention’s electoral circuit qualification will likely have, all
other things being equal, 1,500 for the next, and 1,395 for the one thereafter. Put another way, a circuit would
need 1,613 members today to have 1,500 in three years, and 1,734 today to have 1,500 in six years. (It should
be noted that the upturn in the small buckets of districts and the non-geographical category may not be as
significant, in fact, as they appear.)

26

Of course, these changes are not uniform across the districts or within a given district. Figure 6 shows the
distribution (in box-plot form, with the colored portion of the box reflecting the two inner quartiles, or half
the circuits) of recent rates of confirmed membership change across the districts—a reminder that “all other
things” are rarely equal. A considerable number of circuits reported confirmed membership losses, over the
past three years, of more than 10%, with some districts having half or more of their circuits in this range. At
the same time, there are districts reporting as many as a quarter of their circuits having net gains in the past
three years. In this sense, the vertical lines indicated in Figures 3 and 4 to show threats to circuit stability
may here and there—and more frequently in the WSW region—underestimate the challenge at hand, or, in
fewer places, overstate it. Comparing to the same figure in Whitepaper I, note the change in scale; some of
the losses reported in years no longer part of the window were extreme. In a few districts, more circuits are
reporting gains; in others, reported losses are more pronounced. Nonetheless, the general analysis holds.

27

�ection � o� �hitepaper � is historical in nature and re�uires no update�

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

5. Analysis of Potential Change due to Variation of Electoral Circuit Formation Parameters

2

Whitepaper I explored the question of the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes
to representational balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7
member congregations and 1,500 confirmed members). The set of heuristic Max-P experiments described in
Whitepaper I was repeated with SY2024 data and to reflect some of the choices made in the task force’s later
work. �or details on the Ma�-P e�periments, see �hitepaper �, �ection ��

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

19

These preliminaries out of the way, we will now evaluate, for a variety of parameter selections, the extent to
which a given set of parameters: (1) renders presently or likely-soon-to-be exceptional circuits
unexceptional; and (2) would give districts the option of optimizing their representation to new, lower
standards, increasing their representation share and the size of the total convention delegation. Max-P
enables the second measure.

20
21

�able �� �ercent (%) of 2026 con�ention circuits �assuming no realignment or recombination of visitation circuits, and a 7%
triennial drop in confirmed membership� that would re�uire e�ceptions or realignment/combination for 2029–2035 conventions

15
16
17
18

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

5

4
5
6
7

Confirmed Members
800 1000 1200
1500
0.2% 1.0% 3.0%
14.9%
0.2% 1.0% 3.0%
14.9%
0.2% 1.0% 3.0%
14.9%
0.8% 1.6% 3.6%
15.5%5
������ pro�� ����� con�ention�

Confirmed Members
800 1000 1200
1500
0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9%
0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9%
0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9%
1.0% 1.6% 4.6% 24.6%
������ pro�� ����� con�ention�

Confirmed Members
800 1000 1200
1500
0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4%
0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4%
0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4%
1.4% 2.6% 7.2% 33.0%
������ pro�� ����� con�ention�

Table 2 shows, for a variety of combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and
minimum confirmed members) the estimated proportion of 2026 circuits (assuming a 7% triennial drop in
confirmed membership and no congregation closures or mergers) that would likely have fallen below the
indicated minimum congregation and confirmed membership requirements by the time to align for the
2029, 2032, and 2035 conventions. As indicated previously, 15.5% of existing 2026 electoral circuits would
require exceptions (if allowed; otherwise, adjustment or combination) for 2029, 24.6% for 2032, and 33.0%
for 2035. If the confirmed member requirement were reduced to 1200, the exception rate could be held to
3.6% for the 2029 convention (but would likely rise to 4.6% and 7.2%, respectively, for 2032 and 2035). 6 Of
course, it is not realistic to expect that with the bar lowered that at least some districts would not restructure
to increase representation, potentially increasing the size of the convention, possibly dramatically. It should
be noted that in the “congregation requirement” dimension, closures, mergers, and charters are not modeled.

5
These are not evenly distributed: 20.0% of non-geographical circuits, 20.4% of those in the WSW region, and 30.1% of those in the
ESE region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2026 circuits in 2029, with 6.2–11.1% requiring them in other regions. If the
7/1500 requirement is held, in three triennia’s time, 33.0% of circuits would have to be revised, as indicated: 46.7% of nongeographical circuits, 50.6% of those in ESE, 46.2% of those in WSW, and 19.3–27.5% of those in the other regions.
6
These projected exception rates are much lower than those in the first paper, partially because realignment for the 2026
convention—primarily at district initiative and partially because of a reduced number of exceptions granted—significantly reduced
the number of circuits within a few triennial drops of (or already below) the confirmed membership line. They are also reduced by
the adjustment of projected 8–9% triennial drops to 7% due to incorporation of 2023–24 reporting. A reduction to 1,200 members
helps only so much; 13.3% of non-geographical, 19.3% of those in ESE, and 11.8% of those in WSW would be exceptional in three
triennia.

6

157

2026 Convention Workbook

Figure 6: �istribution o� �isitation-Circuit-Level Reported Confirmed Membership Change, 2021–24

Noting that 7% of 2026 circuits are exceptional relative to SY2024 data, and that the Max-P model admits of
no exceptions, the number of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2024 data for a given district varied from 100%
to 167% of those aligned for the 2026 convention, with a median of 121% (standard deviation 16%). Some
districts (e.g., CNH, EA, NE, NJ, MDS, MI, SELC, SW, TX) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize
representation (Max-P forms no more than 10% more circuits); others (CI, EN, IW, MNN, MNS, MT, ND, NEB,
NI, NW, OH, OK, SD, SI, WY) are farther from such (Max-P forms 20–67% more circuits), possibly reflecting
other alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long-term rather than continually realign to
maximize representation.

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

13

prior to the Synod convention, generally relies on the previous statistical year, so districts have to predict
circuits likely to drop below requirements in the intervening year of data reporting.

Congregations

1
2