LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 175

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
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 resolved 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 SMP2
is less in some respects than that of a commissioned minister 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 ministers 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:

175

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

Opinion: Yes, in limited circumstances.
The commission must first clarify the sense of “supervisory authority” in the question. Whether an SMP can exercise “employment”
supervision, generally, over others employed by his parish is a
matter of the congregation’s self-governance (Constitution Article
VII), into which the commission does not intrude. The commission specifically addresses pastoral oversight,3 that being the sense
in which the holder (sole or senior pastor of the congregation) of
the Office of the Holy Ministry in that place oversees the doctrine,
practice, and life of those occupying any auxiliary offices in the
congregation, a consequence of their offices assisting and being responsible to the Office of the Holy Ministry he bears (cf. Walther’s
Ministry Thesis VIII).
As explained above, Bylaw 2.13.1’s main paragraph limits the development of an SMP to a “specific Word and Sacrament ministry
context” for which the training, which lacks necessarily the breadth
and depth of general pastoral formation, in the judgment of the
district president, can be expected adequately to prepare him. His
subsequent calls are limited to ones for which the district president
can certify his limited training as preparing him.
Bylaw 2.13.1 (a), as explained above, does not address the pastoral
authority of an SMP within his context (call, parish) and therefore
does not itself preclude his role being defined to include supervision of, for example, a commissioned minister within his parish.
This does not diminish the responsibility of the district president
to approve the training and calling of SMPs to only those specific
ministry contexts for which the training is adequate and for which
more fully prepared options are not available (2013 Res. 5-04B).
While the commission cannot foreclose the possibility (e.g., with
regard to an SMP who also served capably as a commissioned
teacher/principal) that a particular SMP could be equipped to exercise pastoral oversight, within his parish, over a commissioned
auxiliary minister, it does not find this ordinarily to be the case—a
position supported by, for example, 2013 Res. 5-04B’s assertion
that SMPs not be used where a commissioned minister could fulfill
the duties. Ultimately, however, this lies within the determination
by the district president that the specific ministry context (call, parish), involving as it does whatever supervisory capacities with regard to auxiliary offices present in the context, is one for which the
necessarily limited training of an SMP adequately prepares him.
Question 2:

For example, if a large congregation with a staff of
senior pastor, SMP, a director of Christian education, a full day school staff, and a director of parish
music experiences a vacancy in the senior pastor
position, what would be the appropriate relationship
between the SMP and the commissioned workers?

Question 3:

If the answers to the above questions indicate that
there is never a circumstance that an SMP might
have supervisory authority over a commissioned
worker, would that obligate congregations in the
scenario envisioned above to engage a vacancy pastor in order to maintain proper supervisory authority
over not only the SMP, but also all commissioned
workers involved?

Opinion (regarding Questions 2 and 3): Relationships inherent to
the SMP’s current call would be unchanged. As to relationships
2026 Convention Workbook