A member of the Task Force has pointed out that we did not address an important issue,
namely the proposed changes favoring more delegate representation for large congregations
at Synodical Conventions. He is correct. It is important. We are pleased to publish the
"Minority Report" by Task Force member Charles H. Abel. We encourage lay people
to express their views to the Task Force.
We thank Mr. Able for his very insightful analysis of Task Force Report.
Dear Pastor Cascione,
There is one overriding error in the task force report that you did not touch on. I am
a member of the task force and have serious concerns about the following:
Charles H. Abel
Immanuel Lutheran Church
Clovis, New Mexico
chabel@3lefties.com
A MINORITY POSITION CONCERNING DELEGATE ELECTION TO SYNODICAL CONVENTION
Although I agree with the overwhelming majority of the report, I have significant
disagreement with one portion, the election of delegates to Synodical conventions. At the
recommendation of President Barry, I requested the opportunity to have a "minority
statement" attached to the report (it was 3/4 of a page long). The request was
disapproved by the task force. I feel strongly enough about this part of the report that I
am seeking ways to publicize my position concerning delegate election. All I ask is that
you consider the following, and if you have concerns either way, please notify the task
force through our staff assistant, Rev. Ken Schurb, at the International Center. You may
also send this information to anyone you feel will be interested. Silence is not in our
favor.
The Report of the Task Force on National/District Synod Relations is seriously
deficient in one area: the election of delegates to Synodical conventions. The task force
proposal changes the formula based on confirmed members placing more emphasis on the size
of congregations than has been done in the past. This feeds right into the hands of the
Church Growth Movement while removing the emphasis from the fact that congregations and
not communicant members are the building blocks of the Synod.
The task force properly concludes (page 50, lines 29-30) that no changes need to be
made for district conventions. One pastoral and one lay delegate from each congregation is
the proper way, "..since every congregation has equal standing in the number of
voting delegates." It also notes that this is in accordance with the Synodical
Constitution Article V.A.
The report continues (page 50, lines 36-ff, "While the same kind of individual
congregation representation at Synodical conventions may be desirable, such an arrangement
would be almost impossible to implement in practice." I couldn't agree more. The
ideal is that each congregation is represented by a pair of votes: one pastoral and one
lay. In 1874 the synod changed from every congregation having a pair of delegates to a
pair of delegates representing a group of 2 to 7 congregations. Please note that there was
no consideration given to the relative size of the congregations, just that congregations
would be grouped together to send a pair of voting delegates.
I can imagine two reasons for that decision to be made by the Synod in 1874. First, the
conventions were held in churches and the number of delegates was definitely a
consideration. Grouping churches together reduced the number of delegates at each
convention.
Secondly, as the LC-MS spread outwards from Missouri, travel distances and the length
of time to travel by "horse and buggy" caused new problems. Grouping area
churches together made the vacant pulpits less numerous as pastors and laymen made the
trek to the conventions and back. Also, I would say that clusters of congregations were
most probably evident across the country. Congregations relatively close to each other
could get together and send a pair of delegates.
Neither of these reasons concerned the fact that any one church should have more or
less voting power than any of the other churches. Size of a given congregation was not a
factor. In 1893, the number of congregations grouped together for a pair of voting
delegates was changed to 5 to 7 congregations. Once again, congregational size was not a
factor. The 1917 constitutional revision changed the electoral circuit size to a minimum
of 10 congregations.
It was not until about 1923 that congregational size was considered. Electoral circuits
were to be groupings of 10 to 15 congregations with large congregations forming small
circuits and small congregations forming large circuits. The formula was changed in 1967.
The criteria then became 7 to 20 congregations with an aggregate communicant membership
ranging from 1,500 to 10,000. The task force is now recommending (page 52, lines 24-30)
that the number of congregations be changed to 5 to 20 with an aggregate communicant
membership ranging from 2,500 to 7,500.
The change might seem rather small, but let's look at some relationships. Large to
small YEAR RANGE RATIO (at the extremes)
1923 10 to 15 1 : 1.5
1967 7 to 20 1 : 2.9
2001 5 to 20 1 : 4
In 1923, it took 1 1/2 small congregations to equal (have the voting strength of) 1
large congregation. In 1967, it took 2 6/7 small congregations to equal 1 large
congregation. With the proposed change, it will take 4 smaller congregations to equal the
voting strength of one large congregation. And all the time I thought that it was
congregations that were members of synod not the communicant membership.
If it is right and proper that at district conventions each congregation has two voting
delegates, one pastoral and one lay, and, as the report states, "While the same kind
of individual congregation representation may be desirable.." why do the largest
congregations all of a sudden deserve four times the voting representation of the smaller
ones?
I've been told that one reason that congregations are grouped into electoral circuits
is to reduce the number of delegates at Synodical conventions. Look at how easy it could
become to adjust the ultimate number of delegates if electoral circuits were the same size
based on the number of congregations. For discussion purposes, let's say there are 6000
congregations.
Number of Congregations in circuit: 10 12 13 14 20
Number of voting delegates:1200 1000 923 857 600
If the requirement for the congregations to be "adjacent" was removed; small,
medium, large, and mega-size churches could all feel represented at the Synodical
conventions by grouping similar size churches together to elect delegates. This is even
made easier to do since the task force is recommending that delegate elections are to be
conducted at district conventions when all churches are represented. But a pair of
delegates would represent the same number of congregations.
Small congregations are slowly being disenfranchised from the Synodical conventions by
diluting their voting strength. This is wrong. Why should a smaller rural or inner-city
congregation not have the voting strength of a large congregation? Why should a smaller
"ethnic" congregation not be equal to all the other congregations? What is the
reasoning behind shifting voting strength from the many smaller congregations in the synod
to a few of the large and mega-churches? If "size" becomes more and more
important to a congregation for political (voting) purposes, what will happen to the
proper administration of church discipline? The necessity to remove people from the rolls
for several reasons, i.e., self-exclusion, a public immoral lifestyle, could easily be
overlooked to "keep the numbers up."