LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 174

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

174

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

the extensive discussion begun in its December meeting, the commission offers the following background and responds to the series
of questions as follows:
Background: Interpretation of Bylaw 2.13.1 (a)
The questions asked arise out of Council of Presidents Policy Manual 14.2.3’s assertion (dated April 2018) that the “supervision of
commissioned ministers, other rostered workers, a school, etc.”
by an SMP is precluded by Bylaw 2.13.1 (a)’s prohibition of the
SMP “[being] placed or called into ecclesiastical roles that exercise
pastoral oversight outside the context of his call.” The commission
must first address the meaning of Bylaw 2.13.1 (a), namely, to determine if the language “outside the context of his call” necessarily
prohibits the specification of an SMP’s call as involving supervision of some other called worker, such as a commissioned minister.
The “Background” for 2007 Resolution 5-01B slightly elucidates
“outside the location of his call,” the original language of the noted
bylaw, adding (Proceedings, 135) the clarifying language “i.e., in
the church-at-large,” along with the four subordinate examples that
came to be included as the prohibitions of Bylaw 2.13.1 (b)(1–4). It
further speaks of the SMP’s “jurisdictional” limitations being on the
basis of “theological education [] formed within the context of [an
SMP’s] specific ministry and [that] does not represent the breadth
and depth of theology and ecclesiology that forms a basis for pastoral oversight beyond the local level.” (In the related bylaw language, 2010 Res. 7-05 replaced location with context, with the sole
stated purpose of preventing the misinterpretation of Bylaw 2.13.1
[a] to mean that an SMP cannot receive a call to a new position of
service, even though he has been trained for such and certified for
such as determined by his district president.) The prohibition of
Bylaw 2.13.1 (a) does not, therefore, address the SMP’s exercise
of pastoral oversight within his parish, as may be assigned to him
in the role described in his call documents (e.g., sole pastor, staff
pastor). Rather, it addresses and prohibits his undertaking ecclesiastical roles exercising pastoral oversight in the church-at-large,
such as (but not limited to) those listed in Bylaw 2.13.1 (b)(1–4).
Granting that this is far from the only consideration in whether an
SMP may properly be placed into such a role (see further below),
Bylaw 2.13.1 (a) does not itself, therefore, prohibit an SMP’s specific context and call from being defined to include supervision of
another called worker of the same parish, such as a commissioned
minister. This understanding of Bylaw 2.13.1 (a) is consistent with
the Synod’s designation of the SMP as pastor and even in some
circumstances as sole pastor of his parish. The bylaw limits the
SMP’s jurisdiction to the scope defined by his present call (see
2007 Res. 5-01B, “Background,” Proceedings, 133–34) but does
not make him less a pastor within the scope of that call. (This is not,
however, to deny that his service as pastor remains, throughout his
service as an SMP, subject to the additional supervision of a general
ministry pastor.)
Considering specifically a sole-pastor SMP, while such SMP remains under the supervision of another ordained minister (not
SMP) who serves outside his parish, such SMP and not that supervisor (whose call is elsewhere) is the pastor of his parish. The
sole-pastor SMP (as opposed to being one in a staff-pastor position)
exercises the fullness of the pastoral office in that congregation (including preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments and
the authority of spiritual judgment, Walther’s Ministry Thesis V).
Any auxiliary offices in the parish necessarily serve under his pastoral oversight, as from his office as the pastor of the congregation
all others originate as helpers to it (Walther’s Ministry Thesis VIII).
2026 Convention Workbook

He serves, in turn, under the ecclesiastical supervision of his district
president (as does any pastor who is a member of the Synod), as
well as under the additional supervision1 of a non-SMP pastor. The
authority, however, of his office as pastor loci is not diminished by
Bylaw 2.13.1 (a); diminished only is his jurisdiction outside the
scope defined by his call (in this case, outside his parish).
Background: SMP Formation, Specific Ministry Context, and the
Role of District Presidents
At the same time, the theological education of an SMP is formed
for a specific ministry context: “[The SMP] is eligible to serve only
in that specific ministry context for which he has been trained and
may not be offered or accept a call for ministry for which he has
not been certified as determined by his district president” (Bylaw
2.13.1). The SMP program consists—by design, as an exceptional
route—of training and formation that lacks the depth and breadth
of preparation afforded by the M.Div. track: “Emerging needs and
economic pressures often make it impossible to call a pastor who
has received a broad and thorough theological education to every
congregation or mission station where, nevertheless, people need
to hear the Gospel” (2007 Res. 5-01B, “Background,” Proceedings, 133). The SMP curriculum focuses on “basic competencies”
for Word and Sacrament ministry, with seminars and local mentorship touching on aspects of the particular context (perhaps including “basic mission planter training, edge gathering, and advanced
mission planter training”) (id., 134). Upon certification, call, and
ordination, “the student is placed on the pastoral roster of the Synod
as a ‘specific ministry pastor.’ He now may preach and administer
the Sacraments under supervision in a specific locality.” He subsequently must complete the educational program to “continue development of the foundational competencies necessary for serving as
a specific ministry pastor” (id., 135).
Specific ministry pastors are “pastors certified for calls into specific
ministry contexts, who serve under the supervision not only of the
district president but also of a designated general ministry pastor.
As such, they are eligible for calls into a similar specific ministry context, where they continue under the supervision of a general
ministry pastor” (id., 135).
While the specific kind of ministry or context may vary in some
duties and responsibilities from situation to situation, what does not
change is that the SMP remains under the supervision of a pastor
who is not SMP. This supervision is essential to the ongoing service
of SMPs in whatever context and continues as long as the SMP is in
service or rostered, unless he continues his education and reaches
“a level appropriate to general ministry pastor” and, as a result of
an examination, has his status changed (ibid.). In view of the fact
that “an SMP pastor has been certified and ordained to serve in a
specific kind of ministry” (emphasis added), the implementing resolution looked for “opportunity” for such a pastor “subsequently
to be prepared to serve the church more broadly,” noting that this
further necessary preparation would require “a combination of further academic preparation, accumulated pastoral experience, and
examination (id., 134).”
In view of the limited training and formation of SMPs, 2013 Res.
5-04B resolved “that 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” (Proceedings, 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