The following report was shared with the Synod on March 10, 2021, “at least 18 months prior to the [2023] convention,” by placement on the Synod web page, official notice, and announcement to the membership, with comment to be shared with the floor committee to which this report is assigned.
Introduction 2019 Res. 9-17, “To Study Voting Privilege in the LCMS,” charged “the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) in conjunction with the Council of Presidents (COP), including a number of commissioned ministers chosen by the COP, [to] prepare a report regarding the historic and current voting privileges in the Synod,” to be made available to the Synod at least 18 months prior to the 2022 Synod convention. This resolution bore special reference to the service of commissioned ministers and to the fact that “the cur-
rent structure of the Synod does not allow for a third category of voting delegates at district and Synod conventions,” which “third category” might be understood to consist either of commissioned ministers specifically or advisory individual members in general. In order to fulfill this assignment, a study group was appointed, in part by the CCM and in part by the COP, consisting of the Rev. Dr. George Gude, CCM Chairman; the Rev. Dr. John Sias, LCMS Secretary; the Rev. Derek Lecakes, Atlantic District President; the Rev. Dr. Michael Gibson, Pacific Southwest District President; the Rev. Dr. John Wohlrabe, Second Vice-President (Great Lakes Region); Teacher Wendy Morris (Missouri District); Teacher Chris Cody (South Wisconsin District); and Teacher Zachariah Schnare (Southern Illinois District), all but the first two appointed by the COP. The committee met twice, by electronic means, in June 2020 and January 2021. The final draft report was circulated and approved for publication on March 9, 2021, concluding the committee’s assignment. At its first meeting, the committee dealt chiefly with the extensive historical background assembled by Drs. Gude and Sias, this question having been explored repeatedly in conventions reaching back to the very roots of the Synod. At its second meeting, the committee treated in more detail the present role of individual advisory members in the conventions of the Synod and, to this end, invited Rev. Dr. Allan Buss, Northern Illinois district president, to share his district’s unique practice of advisory delegate polling. At this meeting and afterward, the committee also considered roster and statistical information, provided by Secretary Sias and Dr. Gude, treating the distribution of advisory individual members in the Synod and their representation at conventions, including on their floor committees. Some of that material is reflected here, in order to assess or to assist districts with assessing, in a synodwide context, how effectively the principle of advisory representation is being realized, both in the districts and at the Synod level. The committee limited itself principally to its explicit assignment—namely, documenting the historic and present voting practice in the conventions of the Synod, as well as the many un adopted proposals, over the years, to change it—but understood its task also to relate to the long-standing, historical advisory role afforded commissioned and other advisory, individual members, and to how it is functioning in the conventions of the districts and the Synod. The committee offers, in that regard, observations for further consideration by the congregations, circuits, conferences, and district conventions of the Synod, with the hope that these will renew appreciation for the prominent role Synod’s polity gives advisory members—both on the part of the individual members who have this opportunity and for the conventions they are intended to advise. Perhaps these observations may also lead to the development of proposals, whether by way of encouragement, standing rule, or convention overture, district or Synod, for improvement in the actual realization and implementation of this role. The Synod and its districts are not able to adjust their voting representation without a convention of the Synod amending its Constitution. This report is intended to be helpful to congregations, circuits, and districts that might be contemplating such a proposal to the Synod convention, so that they might do so cognizant of the significant amount of study these questions have received many times before and the close relation of these issues to fundamental polity of the Synod. It is also intended to assist congregations, circuits, districts, and the Synod in assessing how well the ideal of advisory representation is presently being achieved. Improvements in
this area, many details of which are not dictated in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod or of the districts, may be much more readily achievable, and may also well serve the Synod and its members, both congregational and individual.
PART I: Franchise in The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod Principle of franchise in the Synod: the Pfarrgemeinde concept The basic principle of franchise in the Synod at the time of its formation in 1847 involved two essential components. The first essential component was that the Synod consisted of equal congregations or parishes (Pfarrgemeinden) [1], no matter their numerical size, and it was these that held the franchise. The second essential component was the maintaining of a “balance of power” in the conventions of the Synod between the clergy and the laity. To accomplish this principle of franchise, the 1847 Constitution of the Synod assigned the franchise to each member Pfarrgemeinde (“pastor-congregation” or “parish”) of the Synod, with each Pfarrgemeinde to receive two votes, one to be cast by its pastor and the other by the lay delegate accredited by the parish. [2] This arrangement developed during the course of the discussions that led to the founding of the Synod. The initial impetus for the formation of the Synod came from the men Pastor Wilhelm Löhe had sent to the United States to provide spiritual care for its many German immigrants. Löhe had instructed them to join one of the established synods in their new land. They did so but were not satisfied with the theology they found in those synods. In December 1844, Pastors Wilhelm Sihler and Adam Ernst sent a letter to C.F.W. Walther, the pastor of Trinity, St. Louis, asking if it would be possible to form an organized union with the Saxons. In his January 2, 1845, response, Walther expressed a desire for unity, but at the same time he noted that among the Saxon immigrants there was a great fear of clergy domination (C.F.W. Walther, ed. Carl S.
Meyer, Walther Speaks to the Church: Selected Letters [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1973], 15). A meeting was scheduled in Cleveland in September 1845, to which Walther was invited; his health, however, did not allow him to attend. The meeting was held Sept. 13–18, 1845, in Cleveland for the purpose of proposing a constitution for a Synod with the doctrine and polity taken from the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. While a rough draft of a constitution was produced, no copy of it has survived. However, Pastor Wilhelm Sihler published a series of articles following the meeting, in which he laid out his ideas regarding the nature of such a Synod. After showing how it would be impossible to copy the organization of the church as it was in Europe on the American soil, Sihler states his ideas how such a Synod could be organized: According to Sihler a synod should not merely be advisory, but it should be a body, or corporation, which would in the name of the Church, i.e., the whole number of the adult and confirmed members, direct, watch over, and administer the Church. The synod should not be simply a ministerium, composed of members of the clergy only, but worthy members of the laity would be elected by their congregations to synodical membership. These laymen, together with the clergymen, would constitute the synod. This synod would then regulate, direct, and administer all matters pertaining to the doctrine, life, worship, and discipline of the Church. To quote Sihler:
“All means, therefore, which would in any way preserve and further the Church according to its essence and purpose, the synod, according to its ability, would have to inaugurate energetically and watch over its harmonious and active cooperation.” This conception of a synod and its jurisdiction was radically different from that held by Walther in St. Louis. (Carl S. Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Synod [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947], 175n.) During much of May 1846, the pastors held a series of meetings in St. Louis at which the voters of Trinity congregation were also involved. By the end of this meeting, a complete draft of the constitution was formulated. Sihler and the other eastern pastors had, in their time with Walther and Trinity, St. Louis, been won over to the potential of a fundamentally congregational, yet confessional, polity in which the laity had an equal part. Naysayers of Trinity, St. Louis, still smarting from the Stephan affair, were also convinced that the rights of congregations and of the priesthood of all believers would, under such a polity, be preserved (idem, 178–79). The Constitution would be put into its final form at a meeting in Fort Wayne in July 1846 and adopted at the formation of the Synod in Chicago in April 1847. It is important to note that this polity’s basic franchise principle, while an adiaphoron, was totally consistent with concepts Walther had presented in the Altenburg Theses as he led the Saxon immigrants out of the chaos that followed the debacle with Martin Stephan. The church consists in the community of believers, and all ecclesiastical authority resides in the congregation. This was later developed in greater detail in Kirche und Amt (C.F.W.
Walther, Church and Ministry: The Voice of Our Church on the Question of Church and Office [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2012]. Since it is each congregation that possesses all ecclesiastical authority, each parish possesses an equal vote (the equality of congregational votes is known as Stimme ng le ich he it). The office of pastor is a divine institution, and this office is conferred through the congregation as the possessor of all ecclesiastical authority. The pastor is charged to exercise spiritual care of the parish. At the same time, the parish is primarily the members, the laypeople. Therefore, it was concluded that each parish received two votes, one by its pastor and the other by its lay delegate. Kirche und Amt was affirmed in 1851 and reaffirmed in 2001 as the official position of the Synod, the “definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod’s understanding on the subject of church and ministry” (2001 Res. 7-17A). The Pfarrgemeinde/Stimme ng le ich he it trans-parochial polity of the Synod can be seen to align logically with the scriptural and dogmatic foundations of the Synod, especially in relation to “Church” Theses VI–VIII and “Ministry” Theses III, V–X. The trans-parochial polity of the Synod also aligns with Walther’s further practical development of intra-congregational polity in his 1864 book, The Right Form of a Christian Congregation, especially with its parts VI and VII (trans. J.T. Mueller and published with The True Visible Church [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005]). The Synod is conceived as an aid and extension of such congregations, and not of any other constituencies or units of the church (not individual believers, estates, or vocations). Believers, estates, and vocations relate to one another in their respective congregations. These congregations relate to and work with one another through the Synod. Though other forms of church polity are possible within the freedom the Church enjoys, it would be difficult to conceive of a form flowing more naturally from the doctrine of Kirche und Amt than a polity based upon equal representation of parishes by their basic constituent elements: their preachers and the priesthood of all believers.
Individual membership and advisory delegates; nineteenth-century proposals of teacher franchise While Pfarrgemeinden (pastor-congregations) were designated as the only voting members, membership in the Synod was not limited to them. The 1847 Constitution of the Synod established three categories of individuals who were designated as advisory members. The first category included pastors not authorized by their congregations to vote [3]; the second, candidates for the office of pastor; and third, teachers of the parochial schools of congregations of the Synod. In 1854, when the Synod divided into districts, the wording of Const. Chapter III regarding voting did not change and was applicable to both district and Synod conventions. When delegate conventions for the Synod were begun in 1872, the Synod again did not change this wording. The practice for conventions of the Synod would simply henceforth be that each pair of delegates, one a pastor of a Pfarrgemeinde and the other a layman, now came from a group of congregations. Apparently some congregations were interested in their parochial schoolteachers or instructors at the institutions of the Synod being allowed to vote in place of a lay delegate at district conventions. The question came to the 1874 Synod convention, and it was resolved that no district may seat these individuals as a lay delegate at one of its conventions (1874 Proceedings, 79). To do so would have violated the principle of equality between the clergy and the laity. The matter of allowing teachers (today, commissioned ministers) to vote was discussed at the 1887 convention. The proposal was to allow teachers to vote in the election of officers but not in financial matters. The convention rejected the proposal, noting that the proposal would drastically change the representative principle on which the Synod had been founded. In addition, it observed that it would be too difficult to distinguish what was a financial matter and what the impact might be on a vote that was neither an election of officers nor a financial matter (1887 Proceedings, 85). The matter was also a topic of discussion at the 1893 Synod convention, though the report of the committee assigned to consider the matter and bring proposals was essentially the same as in 1887. The committee stated that the question of allowing teachers (today, commissioned ministers) to vote could not be separated from a fundamental principle of the structure of the Synod. From the beginning, there was a distinction between voting and advisory members, and the reason for this distinction was that the Synod was constituted by equal congregations that had freely joined together for ecclesiastical purposes. It was these member congregations alone that had the right to vote, and the committee stated that these principles are best be carried out when each parish sends two delegates: one the pastor and the other a properly accredited lay delegate (1893 Proceedings, 124). To grant franchise even in a restricted sense, limiting it to the election of officers, it was determined, would violate this fundamental principle. If this were enacted, the result would be that some congregations would have restricted voting powers while others would have too much power. In addition, were the right of voting to
be granted to teachers, it could equally be argued that it should be given to other advisory members as well. In such a case, this group of advisory members could ultimately be the determining factor in any election, contradicting what might have been the will of the congregations. Upon these considerations, the Synod adopted a resolution, in view of the reasons presented, to retain the present well-established order and not grant the vote to the teachers (1893 Proceedings, 125).
Twentieth-century proposals of teacher and other advisory franchise Following the 1893 convention, the topic of teachers voting did not occur again in the Proceedings of the Synod until 1962. In response to a memorial requesting that the right of franchise by members of the Synod be reconsidered, the Synod declared simply that the Synod was organized on a congregational basis, with each congregation or parish limited to two votes, namely its pastor and a layperson, and that giving the right to vote to advisory members of the Synod would alter the representative structure of the Synod. It therefore resolved to decline the memorial (1962 Proceedings, 129). Several overtures were submitted to the 1969 convention of the Synod regarding the right of franchise, and the floor committee was of the opinion that it did not have sufficient time to thoroughly consider all of the implications, so it presented a resolution to the Synod calling for the President of the Synod to appoint a special committee to consider the question and present a report to the following convention. This resolution was adopted (1969 Proceedings, 117–18). Regarding the franchise of teachers, the Committee on Organization that had been appointed reported to the 1971 convention of the Synod. It pointed out that the topic had frequently been raised before in the Synod, and that the Synod had always consistently answered, maintaining the principle that the vote belonged only to the congregations, with each congregation or parish having two votes, one its pastor and the other a layman, in order to maintain a balance between clergy and laity. The report continued by referencing in detail the action of the 1893 Synod convention. The report concluded that no changes should be made in the right to vote at conventions (1971 Workbook, 218). 1971 Res. 5-09, however, which indicated that the Committee on Organization appointed following the 1969 convention had not been able to complete all of the tasks assigned to it, placed the remainder of the items into the hands of a new Committee on Organization (1971 Proceedings, 155). The 1973 report of this Committee on Organization included several topics pertaining to the organization of conventions of the Synod. Pertaining to voting rights, the topics covered by their report did not specifically deal with teachers voting at conventions but with other aspects. The questions considered were a more equitable division of delegates among districts, allowing large congregations more than one lay vote, giving a second and third lay vote to the other congregations of a multi-congregation parish, and allowing advisory pastors and campus pastors, too, to vote. The committee rejected all as incompatible with the essential principles of voting rights in the Constitution: that the Synod consists of equal congregations or parishes, no matter the size, that possess the franchise, and that there be a balance of lay and clergy vote (1973 Workbook, 208–9). Two overtures were also submitted that called for an expansion of voting rights. In response, the floor committee
submitted two resolutions to the Synod stating that the current practice be retained and that the current practice be clarified. These were placed in an omnibus resolution, referring them to the Board of Directors of the Synod (1973 Proceedings, 168–69). A task force had been established by the 1975 Anaheim convention that was to study and propose revisions to the Constitution, Bylaws, and organization of the Synod. Several overtures to change the franchise within the Synod were submitted to the 1977 Synod convention. Two new issues were added to the charge given to the task force formed in 1975: one was to consider the way delegates were elected, and the other was to consider allowing advisory delegates to vote, with a proportional increase in the lay votes (1979 Workbook, 59–63). The task force in 1979 proposed significant wording changes to several articles of the Constitution of the Synod, and in addition proposed changes to the eligibility of the delegates who would cast the two votes of the congregation or parish. One vote was to be cast by a pastor or teacher who is in full-time office in the congregation, and the other by a duly elected lay delegate of the congregation (1979 Proceedings, 111, 137). A congregation also presented an overture requesting that teachers be given a vote. The convention responded by simply adopting a resolution to retain the Constitution in its present form and to defer allowing teachers to vote (1979 Proceedings, 111, 137). At the 1981 convention, the President of the Synod, in his address to the convention, recommended a change to allow teachers to vote (1981 Proceedings, 64). Resolution 2-14 proposed that the delegates of an electoral circuit be a pastor and anyone else from a congregation of that circuit. Preferably, it should be a layman, but any teacher or ordained minister who was not the pastor of one of the congregations would also be eligible. After lengthy discussion, this was referred to a committee to be appointed by the President of the Synod for a report to the 1983 Synod convention (1981 Proceedings, 141). In its report to the 1983 convention, the task force formed by the 1981 convention gave a report detailing the length of its research. It identified the various possibilities that have been suggested and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each. In the end, it concluded that the disadvantages of any of the suggested ways to change the exercise of the franchise in the Synod outweighed what would be gained by such a change. It termed the current exercise of franchise a long-established and well-working procedure (1983 Workbook, 213–15). The floor committee’s Res. 5-23 resolved that no change be made in the Constitution or bylaws pertaining to the franchise. However, no action was taken, and it was apparently not brought to the floor of the convention (1983 Proceedings, 190).
ministers to vote. The overture presented by the Commission on Structure, after noting that any change allowing the commissioned ministers to vote would change the basic franchise principles of the Synod, called for the elimination of delegate conventions. Instead of delegate conventions, each congregation of the Synod would send two delegates. One was to be a roster ed member of the Synod, and the other was to be a layperson (2004 Workbook, 264–65). The floor committee essentially ignored the suggestion of the Commission on Structure, instead bringing a resolution that proposed a blue-ribbon committee be formed to study the structure of conventions, including whether to allow commissioned ministers to vote. This resolution was declined by the convention (2004 Proceedings, 157–58). Resolution 8-04A, developed by the floor committee assigned to the material from the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Structure and Governance, would have essentially allowed congregations to send whomever they saw fit as their voting delegates at district conventions (2010 Today’s Business, 2:379–81). Resolution 8-04A was not presented to the convention for action. The 2016 convention of the Synod amended the Constitution, eliminating the category of assistant pastors from the list of “advisory members only” in the Constitution (2016 Proceedings, 202– 3). The effect of this change was that any pastor who is called by the congregation, full-time or part-time, is eligible to cast the pastoral vote of a congregation. In addition, an overture was submitted that called for a discussion; it culminated with action by the 2019 convention of the Synod to allow the franchise of commissioned ministers at future district and Synod conventions. This was placed in the convention’s Omnibus B, assigning the topic to the President of the Synod and the CCM (2016 Proceedings, 269). Several overtures related to this question were submitted to the 2019 convention. The result was the adoption of Resolution 9-17. This called for the formation of this committee by the Commission on Constitutional Matters and the Council of Presidents, which was to study the current and historic voting practices and prepare a report prior to the 2022 convention (2019 Proceedings, 201). This report is submitted in fulfillment of this resolution’s assignment.
Conclusions to Part I
Twenty-first century proposals of commissioned minister franchise
The basic principle of the polity on which the franchise within the Synod was established is that the Synod consists of an organization of equal congregations (Pfarrgemeinden), which are the possessors of all ecclesiastical power; the franchise belongs to these equal congregations or parishes (Pfarrgemeinden). To maintain the balance in authority in the Synod between the pastor, resident in a divinely instituted office, and the laity, who make up the substance of the church in each place, the priesthood of all believers, each of these congregations or parishes (Pfarrgemeinde) received two votes. One was given to the pastor of the congregation and the other to the lay delegate of the congregation. While our particular mechanisms of church polity are adiaphora, neither commanded nor forbidden by the Scriptures, the Pfarrgemeinde polity does reflect the fact that the church is where the marks of the Church are: Word and Sacrament. There may be other aspects of the Church’s work, but the center is the congregation, and the Synod is for and on behalf of the congregation ().
The 2001 Res. 8-10 referred the matter of equitable representation at conventions of the Synod to the Commission on Structure. While the commission was directed to look at various aspects of representation, one of these was the inability of commissioned
Essentially all proposals to broaden the franchise to include teachers (commissioned ministers) have floundered because they would have negated this basic principle, which is consistent with our understanding of Church and Office. Unless and until it can be
A congregation submitted an overture to the 1995 convention of the Synod that called for all ordained and commissioned ministers to be eligible to vote (1995 Workbook, 23–31). The convention addressed this by placing it in its “Omnibus B Resolution,” declining to act on it and referencing the past action of the Synod, specifically that of 1983 (1995 Proceedings, 160).demonstrated that this basic principle is inadequate or unworkable in terms of enabling the Synod to function, or some other form of organization is proposed that can be demonstrated to enable the Synod to function better, it is far better to leave this basic principle of franchise intact. At the same time, there may be room for improvement in how this franchise is carried out. The committee has heard and acknowledges a significant feeling of “disenfranchisement” among a very significant part of the individual roster of the Synod, as expressed in some emotional remarks at the 2019 Synod convention. Is the advice of the advisories being welcomed and given full consideration by those who do exercise the franchise? Are their voices afforded opportunities and consideration commensurate with the importance of the auxiliary offices they hold and with the immense value to the church of the servants holding them? In the Pfarrgemeinde polity, the votes belong to the congregation and are cast—in one part by the preachers and in the other by the hearers—as an act not of power but of service. The ordained and the laity are not represented as two voting blocs, but the voting power of each congregation (or group of congregations) is exercised, in one part, by the one responsible for the total Office of the Ministry and in the other part by one representing the laity, for and on behalf of whom the ministry is carried out in their place. Voting in the church is not to be understood as the exercise of individual or class power, over against that of others, but an exercise of care for the whole so that common goods may be for the common benefit (; Constitution Preamble). The voice of advisories—the scope of which category goes far beyond simply teachers or commissioned ministers—is intended to inform such a vote, to be heard, carefully considered, and taken into account at every level, with those who exercise the vote on behalf of the member congregations as fully informed of the needs and insights of the whole church, including its auxiliary offices and candidates for and emeriti of ordained and commissioned ministry. As with many aspects of the Synod’s polity, there is probably a significant opportunity for the broad re engagement of the Synod’s member congregations and their delegates in this listening and reflecting process—and, as we shall see, for the broad re engagement of the Synod’s advisory members, as well.
PART II: Realization of the Synod’s Concept of Advisory Member Input As noted in the first part of this report, the Synod has, from its inception, welcomed the participation of advisory individual members, originally including those pastors who had joined the Synod but were not voting representatives of member congregations, candidates for the ministry, and teachers. These came to include, as the various other categories of commissioned ministry developed over time, all members in these categories as well.
Taking stock of the individual (advisory) membership of the Synod
In considering the roles of advisory members of the Synod [4] in relation to district and Synod conventions, it is instructive to consider how many there are and how widely they are distributed in the Synod. The table below shows the number of congregational voting delegates (pastor and lay) and the number of individual advisory delegates of the various types in each district. Three columns provide ratios at the far right: first is the ratio of individual advisory to voting delegates, then are the ratios of all commissioned to all
advisory delegates, both for all advisories and for all actively serving advisories. Taking all district conventions collectively, there are 1.77 potential individual advisory delegates for each voting delegate in the Synod, 70 percent of which advisories are commissioned ministers (of the advisory ministers actively in service, commissioned ministers constitute 82 percent). Note, however, that these ratios vary widely from district to district. South Wisconsin District has 3.12 potential advisory delegates per voting delegate, 80 percent of which are commissioned; North Dakota has 0.57, and only 53 percent of these are commissioned. In considering proposals for changes to how commissioned ministers interact with their district conventions, it will be important to take this degree of variation into account. In districts with very large numbers of advisory ministers and very low advisory member attendance at present, it has been suggested that a scheme for designating certain specific representatives to attend on a proportional basis (like that used for the Synod convention, ) may be preferable to the current arrangement, but this may not be necessary or desirable in many districts with fewer advisories and relatively higher participation rates. Circuits, too, are not likely good “units” for commissioned representation, given the very uneven distribution of commissioned ministers across the circuits of the Synod. While district convention advisory delegate attendance rates were not readily available to the committee, the table will provide each district a means of evaluating the rate of attendance of its advisory members (active, candidate, emeritus, commissioned, and otherwise) at its conventions. It is suspected to be the case that at least in districts with many potential advisories, relatively few regularly attend. While there may be reasons for this, Synod bylaws do expect the participation, apart from a valid excuse, of all advisory members of the districts in their district conventions (). If the advisories—especially those active in ministry, principally in the district’s schools—are not in attendance, why not? What can be done to engage the teachers and other commissioned ministers in what is hoped and intended to be a time of vital importance for life together in Word, confession, and mission ()? It was also noted in the committee’s discussions that approximately 28 percent of teachers in Synod schools are presently roster ed; including emeriti, roster ed teachers comprise approximately 49 percent of teachers related to the schools. The majority of teachers are lay (i.e., not commissioned) and therefore have the opportunity (if members of Synod-member congregations) to serve as delegates, which commissioned teachers do not—part of the conundrum of commissioned teachers’ “advisory-only” status.
Parish and circuit Constitutionally, the lay and pastoral delegates together represent each parish (Pfarrgemeinde) and its total ministry in a manner that reflects the connection of Synod’s polity with the Synod’s doctrines and principles of Church and Ministry. A school or other parish ministry involving commissioned workers is an extension of that congregation’s ministry. The existing parish voting delegates should be representing the interests of the school and the school’s workers. How often do the delegates meet, before and after district conventions, with those represented, to discuss issues in ministry in general and issues before the convention in particular? At least for district conventions, where representation is on a direct parish basis, that ought to be the case.
Estimated District Convention Delegations as of January 2021 Sorted by ratio of individual advisory delegates to voting delegates
- Congregations of a multi-congregation parish other than the one supplying the lay voting delegate may elect and depute an advisory lay delegate. ** Includes parish pastors in multi-pastor parishes other than the voting pastor and ordained in extra-parochial service. For total number of active ordained, add the “Voting Pastor” column to the left. The voting representatives of a parish might well be expected to represent the needs of their commissioned workers at the convention; at the same time, commissioned workers may be called by non parish entities (of current commissioned minster assignments, 30 percent of those for teachers, 40 percent for deaconesses, 11 percent for directors of Christian education, and 14 percent for other commissioned are with calling entities other than a congregation or congregation ally governed school). This is not to mention the diminished and further diminishing proportion of Synod-related teaching positions filled by installed, commissioned ministers— another issue entirely.
the circuit at the Synod convention, especially those at which the circuit interacts—either before or after the convention—with representation of member congregations or with the congregations themselves ( [d]) (as infrequent as such meetings seem to be), care can be taken that individual advisory members have an opportunity to participate, or that the voting forum representatives of the congregation take into consideration and represent their needs and insights.
Beyond the parish, commissioned ministers don’t have frequent circuit conferences (winkels), as pastors do, though they do, like their ordained brothers, have less frequent official district or sectional conferences (–4.8.2), which are able to adopt and submit overtures to district and Synod conventions (). Circuit forums can allow for additional advisory participation ( [a]). In meetings related to representation of
Advisory members appointed to floor committees at either the district or the Synod level have voice and vote and serve in a capacity where more thoughtfully substantive change can be made, typically, than on the convention floor. This is probably one of the most significant opportunities, besides having a voice on the floor, to allow advisory members very significant potential impact on the convention process.
Floor committees (district and Synod conventions)
Dr. Gude prepared a report on bylaws governing advisory participation in Synod convention-floor committees and statistics on that participation. From 1924 on, laypersons were required to be appointed to floor committees; from 1969 on, teachers—and then, from 1986, commissioned ministers—were also to be included on all committees. A general revision of bylaws in 1981 made explicit the advisories’ right to vote when serving on floor committees in the district. At the same time, it also reduced by half—from onein-thirty to one-in-sixty—the ratio of advisory representation at the Synod convention. Each convention since 1924 has had some teachers on some floor committees, sometimes apparently depending on topics treated; since 1969, teachers and then commissioned members have been required on all floor committees. In the early conventions, the number of committees was significantly larger, and some committees were very large. There was a predominance of pastors and district presidents. There were also a large number of faculty from the educational institutions of the Synod and quite a high percentage of these were on floor committees. In the later years, faculty of the institutions of the Synod were not included on floor committees, with one or two possible exceptions. In the early years, a fairly high percentage of the teachers who were delegates to the convention wound up also serving on the floor committees. There were also many districts that did not send teacher delegates to the Synod convention, or not as many as they were allowed. The total number of advisory teacher and advisory pastor delegates was fairly consistent throughout the conventions studied. In the early years of the Synod, the majority of the advisory pastor delegates would have been pastors who were members of the Synod, serving independent congregations. In the period reviewed, this would not have been the case. Prior to the 1970s, the majority of advisory pastors would have been assistant pastors, with some emeritus pastors. From the 1980s forward, the majority would have probably been emeritus or with candidatus reverendi minister ii (CRM) or candidate status. The number of voting delegates attending conventions rose for most of the period but recently has declined. The number of floor committees also declined in the later period considered, as did the number of people on the various committees. Given that the number of district presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Synod has remained constant, and the committees have grown smaller more recently, there has come to be a higher percentage of Synod and/or district officials on the floor committees. Compounding this effect, some of the advisory delegates (commissioned and ordained) are also executives of the districts or officers of the district representing the various district boards of directors. (It is also apparent that the percentage of lay delegates, in relation to the total number of lay delegates on the floor committees, has decreased. In 1983, there were 87 roster ed church workers and 59 laity on floor committees. In 2016, there were 129 roster ed church workers and 44 laity.) The committee noted that the full and active involvement of advisory delegates in the floor committees is an already-available measure that should be emphasized. In a day of fast-paced conventions with relatively little substantive debate, floor committees are where the “deep work” happens—and here, if they are included in the composition of the committees, advisory delegates have both voice and vote. (Convention time also needs to be allotted to issues of primary relevance to the work of commissioned ministers; one committee member noted extensive work on 2019 Floor Commit-
tee 12, dealing with important matters for schools and families, that seemed to receive only “short shrift” at the end of the convention.)
District convention Time and expense should be allowed for significant advisory delegate input at the conventions, for a sense of true inclusion and valued voice. Their input is constitutional and important. Nonetheless, in many districts, their attendance is low. Some district conventions align poorly with school-year events or occur on a weekend during the school year, when time away is especially valued. In other cases, the value or purpose of attendance may be questioned or the cost of attendance prove an obstacle. Anecdotally, participation often tends to be by commissioned ministers who are personally interested in Synod or district affairs, but not a priority or practical possibility for most potential advisory delegates. A district doesn’t typically cover the attendance cost of advisories, which may vary greatly depending on the geography of the district and the setting of the convention. While a congregation or other entity served might reasonably be expected to help bear attendance costs for those individual members (including advisories) actively serving it, such support does not seem generally to be provided for the bulk of active commissioned ministers, and schedules may not even be adjusted to accommodate their convention attendance. Moreover, many advisories are not presently serving in installed positions. It was suggested that financial support of advisory attendance could make a significant difference in their attendance rate. President Allan Buss shared with the committee a practice of the Northern Illinois District, started some 18–20 years ago, of having an “advisory poll” prior to the vote of voting delegates on key convention business. Originally, advisory members attending the convention received green and red cards to display to the body prior to significant non election votes. Today, those advisories (typically 30–35 wish to participate) register in advance and the district provides them with polling devices for this purpose. The advisory delegates who register and receive devices are polled and the result displayed prior to assembly votes on motions to close debate, on resolutions, or on substantial amendments there to. There is some cost to the district of the additional voting devices but very little impact on convention pace. The advisory delegates participating are primarily commissioned minsters, active and emeritus, though some ordained emeriti also participate. The practice is thought to have increased somewhat the participation of commissioned ministers in the convention. With approximately 180–200 voting delegates attending, “somewhat more than 30” commissioned register and participate (not by way of formal representation, but through choice) in the advisory poll. Buss noted that this “creates good will with advisories and a more formal opportunity to share opinions.” It was noted that Northern Illinois District, with 198 active parishes, each representable by a pastor and a lay delegate (ca. 364 voting delegates, accounting for pastoral vacancies), presently has 354 ordained roster ed (238 active, 21 of which are SMP; 10 candidates; and 106 emeritus) and 911 commissioned roster ed (471 active, 160 candidate, and 280 emeritus). This makes for a theoretical total of 198 lay delegates, up to 198 ordained ministers voting on behalf of parishes and, theoretically, 1,065 advisory ordained and commissioned delegates. If 30–35 advisories typically register for and attend the district convention as active participants, this indicates by how much—at least in some places—reality falls short of the ideal of , that “all … shall, unless they present a valid excuse, serve as advisory delegates” and—at least in a
larger district—how impractical that ideal might prove if achieved. Northern Illinois happens to the be the district with the highest ratio of commissioned to ordained ministers (2.57:1, compared to a Synod-level statistic of 1.26:1) and proportion of individual members who are advisory delegates (81 percent; Synod: 72 percent). Granting each advisory member a voice allows, theoretically, an equal opportunity to be heard, but only so many get to speak or are inclined to do so, especially at a national convention. A displayed, pre-vote advisory poll may offer a broader opportunity for input. There is a feeling that commissioned ministers (and other advisories) have been “left behind,” especially in an age of little in-depth debate and rapid machine voting. In Northern Illinois District, the advisory poll has given those advisories inclined to participate some form of tangible input.
Synod convention
The committee discussed the participation of the advisory delegates in conventions of the Synod. Dr. Gude’s historical survey also examined their numbers between 1956 and 2019, which have, apart from a couple of exceptional years, remained remarkably stable throughout the period, though the number of roster ed Synod educational institution faculty has declined significantly. It is noted that the roster of commissioned ministers has expanded over time, from male teachers only to also include women (allowed to be called, 1965; allowed to be on roster of Synod, 1973; first listed on roster, ca. 1975; included by rule, even if still contracted by member congregation, 1981) and other categories of commissioned ministry besides teacher. Before 1981, they were represented at a one-to-thirty ratio; after, by a one-to-sixty ratio. In 1981, 149 teachers attended the Synod convention as advisory delegates; in 1983, 98 did so (a reduction by one-third, not one-half, indicating that not all districts were making full use of the one-to-thirty ratio before 1983). Today 110–120 commissioned ministers attend as advisory delegates, of which (in 2019) 78 percent were active (87 percent of those are teachers), 7 percent were candidates, and 16 percent were emeritus. The chart shows, for Synod conventions between 1956 and 2019, three stacked bars for the number of advisory delegates (commissioned and ordained, in modern terms) and educational institution representatives relative to two lines for the number of pastoral and lay voting delegates.
It was suggested that in addition to the important opportunities involving floor committees, there should be more common and formal “listening sessions” to ensure elected delegates are prepared to represent the concerns, needs, and insights of all represented congregations, and of all their ministries and workers. Perhaps this could be codified in the Bylaws for circuit meetings as a mandated process for lay and pastoral delegates to sit with advisories and discuss issues of interest before coming to the convention. (Of course, it might be cautioned that many things—like the post-convention report to the circuit of the delegates—are codified in Bylaws but are not pursued uniformly or even generally in the Synod. Previous attempts at “grassroots listening” have not succeeded in general practice.) Some districts send fewer than the allotted number () of advisory delegates to the Synod convention. In 2019, 184 commissioned and 58 ordained advisory delegates were permitted by the proportional formula; 111 commissioned and 46 ordained advisory delegates attended the convention. The chart below shows how many advisory delegates districts sent (y-axis) relative to how many they were entitled to send (x-axis). (In both charts, ideally, the points would all be on the x-y diagonal.) Does this reflect lack of interest on the part of commissioned ministers, an estimation that participation is not “worth it,” a poor process for selecting representatives, a lack of support of the role, or some combination there of? This seems a valuable conversation to suggest in each district and in commissioned- and ordained-minister district conferences.
Conclusions to Part II
In evaluating how well the constitutional concept of having advisory members offering advice to the conventions is realized, the committee noted that the voice afforded to advisories is significant but not ideally implemented or utilized. Conversations need to be had—perhaps in a more formal, structured, or expected way—so that voting representatives in fact are equipped to represent the “total ministry.” It must be acknowledged that we are sinners; voices may be permitted but not listened to or even treated in a way that encourages and builds up. Several voiced a desire to ensure that commissioned workers “feel valued.” Commissioned ministers, who outnumber ordained ministers synodwide, care about being regarded as “valued partners in ministry.” Some are “pretty passionate about the vote.” Some feel they are “second-class citizens” without a say in Synod or district. There is a feeling that “we struggle to engage lay people, too” in the collective impact of what happens at convention. “How do we make conventions edifying for the church and make it visible that kingdom things are happening here?” It was felt that one of the best existing opportunities is to encourage more participation of commissioned ministers on floor committees. Both commissioned and lay participation seem to be declining over time, with district presidents and Synod representatives seeming to play an increasingly dominant role. Asked whether floor committee roles are perceived as important by advisory delegates, a commissioned minister noted that “committee work affords much more than what’s on the floor.” Increasing the number of commissioned ministers involved in the “back and forth” of committee work would be very valuable, and this is probably the most readily achievable and potentially richest opportunity for meaningful and influential input from advisory members of the Synod. With regard to the “advisory poll” idea practiced in the Northern Illinois District, or a simpler red/green version, this may be an easy enough thing for a district to try. At the Synod level, the simple red/green system would not work well. Some other implementation might be possible by an amendment of the standing rules, although there would probably be significant technical hurdles. Preparations
would have to be made, with extra polling devices and technical preparation required in advance. Regarding such mechanisms, however, a danger was noted, even if remote or secondary—like a danger perceived by some in the posting of pro/con voting queues at the Synod convention—that the custom of regular polling in an environment of inadequate debate can result in the diminution of important minority voices. Of course, parliamentary law is intended to protect both the rights of the minority (and the character of a de liber at ive assembly) and the right of the majority’s mostly agreeable business not to be stymied by a dilatory minority. The conventions of the district and Synod are, however, not simply vehicles for expeditious majority rule or for testing the waters of various constituencies and then voting but for study and persuasion in the Word of God, for the building of true and churchly consensus. Numerical polling can give the impression that a collective voice has been heard, possibly at the expense of more important individual minority voices.
Overall Conclusions Ultimately, the exercise of the franchise in the Synod is not intended to be simply for the decision of issues by the prevalence of political power but is intended to be the means—once the Word of God and conscience have had all necessary opportunity to hold sway, and the needs and concerns of the whole Synod’s union, including its advisory individual membership, have been adequately heard and considered—for the body to vote for the good of the churches and the furtherance of their mission. Only then, in the design of our Synod’s polity, is it time for a matter to be decided by majority vote. Votes change things, but voices change minds. Votes often divide, but a fit word rightly spoken can unite. How, indeed, can the voting assembly of a district or Synod know how to serve and supervise ministry if it doesn’t hear from all its ministers, to understand not only what they want but how they think? It is thus the committee’s hope that their report will be useful to the Synod, not only in reviewing the historical and theoretical foundations of its franchise, but also in recognizing and revitalizing for all it is the “voice, not vote” role—which may not be less than vote, but more—that advisory individual members, including commissioned ministers, have always been intended to have in the mechanisms for governance of the Synod.
Endnotes 1. The German term used, Pfarrgemeinde, is defined in a footnote to the 1847 Constitution as “either one single congregation or the sum of the individual congregations which the pastor serves [be die nt], as, in Germany, the territory in which he serves is called Kir ch spiel or Kirchen spr engel. The pastor may serve 3 or 4 or more congregations, locally separated; they are in relation to him essentially only one congregation.” When the Constitution was translated from the German in 1924, Pfarrgemeinde was translated as “congregation or parish” to reference situations where a pastor served either one or more than one congregation. Hereafter “parish” is generally used as shorthand for “congregation or parish” or Pfarrgemeinde, not to exclude single-congregation parishes. 2. At its founding and for about the first 120 years, the Synod assumed that each Pfarrgemeinde (pastor/congregation) had a single pastor who was responsible for its spiritual care (was “in charge of” the congregation). If a congregation had more than one clergyman, one was considered the Prediger (we would say sole or senior pastor) and the others were Hil fs pre diger (we would say helper pastors or assistant pastors). In the Trinity Congregation meeting of May 18, 1846, drafters of the LCMS Constitution definitively established the rule that only one pastor per Pfarrgemeinde could vote for the congregation, and that others sent were only advisory, under the
name of Stimme ng le ich he it (“equality of votes”) (Carl S. Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Synod [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947], 178). At Fort Wayne, the rule was established that multiple congregations under one Pfarrgemeinde could send only one lay delegate, conserving the Stimme ng le ich he it in another respect (id., 181–83). 3. The men in this category primarily consisted of men who were pastors of congregations that had not yet joined the Synod. However, it did include others as well, such as professors. The 1847 convention of the Synod lists 10 advisory members in attendance. Nine of these were pastors of congregations that were not members of the Synod. The other individual is described as assisting with the instruction at the Fort Wayne institution. 4. Advisory members: That is, individual members of the Synod who are not the voting pastoral delegate of a parish/circuit. No individual member possesses a vote in his own right. One pastor of each parish/circuit casts one of the parish/circuit’s two votes. At the district level, all individual members of the Synod, all ordained and commissioned ministers—active, candidate, and emeritus—are intended to attend the district convention apart from a valid excuse (). At the Synod level, such individual members not eligible to be voting pastoral delegates and not eligible to be selected as advisory representatives (–3.1.4.6) are represented at the Synod convention by advisory delegates, selected on a proportional basis (1 per 60) from each district (–3.1.3.1).
Appendix To Study Voting Privilege in the LCMS 2019 RESOLUTION 9-17 Overture 9-22 (CW, 501)
Whereas, The Synod celebrates the ministry contributions of teachers, directors of Christian education, directors of Christian outreach, directors of family life ministry, directors of parish music, deaconesses, parish assistants and certified lay ministers (directors of church ministries) through their inclusion as ministers of religion— commissioned; and Whereas, The Synod highly values commissioned ministers for their eagerness to serve the Lord and His Church; and Whereas, The Synod recognizes the voices and wisdom of our commissioned ministers as gifts from the Lord; and Whereas, The Synod appreciates and gives thanks to God for the unique vocations of ordained ministers, commissioned ministers and lay people alike; and Whereas, Historically, the structure of the Synod is based on the franchise belonging to the Pfarrgemeinde, maintaining a balance of clergy and lay voting; and Whereas, The current structure of the Synod does not allow for a third category of voting delegates at district and Synod conventions; and Whereas, Commissioned ministers from across the Synod seek to use their gifts and serve the Church in the fullest way possible; therefore be it Resolved, That the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) in conjunction with the Council of Presidents (COP), including a number of commissioned ministers chosen by the COP, prepare a report regarding the historic and current voting privileges in Synod; and be it further Resolved, That this report be made available to the Synod at least 18 months prior to the 2022 Synod convention.
Action: Adopted as read (7) Res. 9-17 was read and introduced by the committee, removing the first resolved (lines 20–21), which erroneously remained in the draft. During discussion by the assembly, the orders of the day were called; closure of debate carried [Yes: 727; No: 188]. Res. 9-17 was adopted as read [Yes: 669; No: 251].