LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 209

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 209

3. To give a lay vote to the second and third congrega-
tion in a dual or multiple parish;

4. To grant the vote to campus pastors and other pastors
who currently qualify only as advisory delegates with-
out vote;

5. To make attendance of advisory members of the Synod
at District conyentions optional.

The first four questions deal with the franchise at syn-
odical conventions. The fifth deals with the question of at-
tendance of advisory members at District conventions. In its
study of the first four questions, the Committee considered
the following:

The Synod is primarily an association of congregations
which have joined together in order to achieve certain ob-
jectives. Therefore, the membership of the Synod consists
first of all of congregations. The vote at synodical conven-
tions is held by them. Pastors and teachers who join the
Synod are also accorded membership, but this may be re-
garded as a professional membership, distinct from the vot-
ing membership held by the congregations. (See Article V)

When the Constitution defines voting membership in Ar-
ticle V A, it emphasizes that “every congregation or parish
is entitled to two votes” at the District conventions, “one of
which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay
delegate.” At synodical conventions, a number of congrega-
tions comprise an electoral circuit, again represented by
two voting delegates, one a pastoral and one a lay delegate.

From this it follows that each congregation has two votes.
one pastoral and the other lay. Thus, if two or more asso-
ciate pastors serve a congregation, it determines which pas-
tor shall exercise its pastoral vote at a District convention.
Similarly, in the election of delegates to the synodical con-
vention, the representatives of the congregations determine
which pastor in the circuit will represent the congregations
of the circuit. The pastors in the circuit do not choose one
of their number to represent them.

It is understandable that sentiment may be strong to grant
additional lay votes to the larger congregation. But this
would destroy the delegate balance of one lay and one pas-
toral vote residing in the congregation as provided in the
Constitution. The committee believes that the matter of
permitting larger congregations to have several lay votes
is equitably provided for in Bylaw 1.51 which states that
electoral circuits may consist of from 7 to 20 member con-
gregations, involving an aggregate communicant membership
ranging from 1,500 to 10,000. The problem of large congre-
gations having no greater voice than small congregations is
solved, in part, by the fact that electoral circuits of large
congregations can be composed of fewer congregations while
larger numbers of smaller congregations are required in or-
der to form an electoral circuit. Nevertheless. the committee
is recommending that the formula for the number of com-
municant members and the number of congregations in an
electoral circuit be kept under constant review.

To grant a lay vote to the second and third congregation
in a multiple parish also will destroy the constitutional dele-
gate balance providing for one lay and one pastoral vote.
Furthermore, it would aggravate the resentment that is held
in some quarters over the fact that larger congregations
have no greater voice or vote than smaller congregations.
The committee therefore feels that continuation of the pres-
ent constitutional provision is the wisest.

The committee defines a “multiple parish” as one con-
sisting of two or more congregations served by a single
pastor either temporarily or permanently. A congregation,
on the other hand, is defined as a single community of be-
lievers. formally organized under a constitution, which may
be served by one or more pastors.

To grant the vote to campus pastors and others working
in a nonparish related ministry and designated as “advisory
members” in the Constitution, Article V B, and in the
Bylaws 1.57 and 1.61, the committee feels, would create
massive inequities by supplying the convention with a large
number of votes from the professional workers in the church
and destroy the historic balance between the professional and
lay vote, and create clergy dominance. In addition, granting
the vote to advisory members of the Synod would destroy
the concept of congregational franchise. However, the pres-
ence and participation of advisory members without vote

at the conventions is both beneficial to them and to their
fellow members.

After carefully weighing the suggestions offered in the
overtures listed above, the committee presents to the con-
vention recommendations which will continue to recognize
the congregations of the Synod as the seat of the legislative
authority. The committee recommends adoption of the fol-
lowing:

1. That the historic balance of one pastoral vote and one
lay vote be retained (Constitution, Article V A);

2. That in case of multiple parishes, voting privileges con-
tinue to be extended on the basis of one pastoral and one
Jay vote for the entire parish;

3. That the current requirements (Bylaw 1.51) concern-
ing the number of communicant members and number of
congregations in electoral circuits be retained for the present
but be subject to ongoing review by the Commission on
Constitutional Matters:

4. That the franchise not be extended to individuals but
continue to rest with the member congregations as the Con-
stitution presently prescribes in Article V A, and Article IX.

5. That attendance on the part of advisory members of
the Synod at District conventions continue to be expected
since an adequate provision for being excused is incorporated
in the Bylaws.

Biographical Data on Nominations

The committee had also been assigned a study of the
“Biographical information available at convention elections”
(Proceedings. 1971, minutes. p.31). It addressed itself to the
question of providing biographical information on the nom-
inees as these currently appear in the convention Workbook,
designated to enable the delegates to exercise their fran-
chise. The committee was aware that at the Milwaukee
convention delegates were asked to vote on more than 260
nominees of which the majority were probably unknown to
them. The committee felt that something ought to be done
to improve the situation.

As the committee examined the pros and cons, it found
on the one hand: more information is needed on a man’s
background, competence and qualifications for the office, ete.:
uninformed voting often results in the election of a man bv
chance, by his position in the alphabet, or because of having
a well-known name.

On the other hand, the nominating committee already
has a formidable task. and for them to provide even more
information may not be feasible: there is probably no way
by which delegates could be fully informed on all nominees:
and expanding this information too much could promote a
form of campaigning.

The committee also consulted various groups in its efforts
to find ways to provide additional data and information on
the candidates, but it could not reach any realistic conclu-
sions and recommendations.

In view of this, the committee recommends to the New
Orleans convention:

1. To retain the present procedure, but that the maximum
data on the candidates be presented in a more understand-
able and readable form, and that the information of the
candidates’ service to the local congregation be reduced;

2. That the New Orleans convention provide for a Com-
mittee which will continue to study matters dealing with
convention nominations and elections for report to a sub-
sequent convention.

The Use of Referenda

The Milwaukee convention asked the Committee on Or-
ganization to study the matter raised in Resolution 5-11
(Proceedings. 1971, p.155). This included Overture 5-65
which requested that member congregations of the Synod
“be given the right to vote on any and all convention reso-
lutions that would authorize affiliation or association with
other church bodies, synods, or federations” and requiring
two-thirds favorable vote by member congregations before
such resolutions would become effective. Since the Council
of Presidents was also given this assignment in Res. 5-40
(Proceedings. 1971, p.168) and will present an overture on
this matter, the Committee on Organization does not feel
it necessary for it also to make a recommendation.