Task Force Member Objects to Representation by Size of Congregation
By Rev. Jack Cascione

 

Reclaim News issued a release titled: "Synod's Task Force Gets High and Low Marks" in response to the recently published "Preliminary Report of Task Force on National/District Synod Relations."

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.

It is the position of Reclaim News that shifting greater power to large congregations will actually hinder the establishment of mission congregations.

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."


Rev. Jack Cascione is pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church (LCMS - MI) in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. He has written numerous articles for Christian News and is the author of Reclaiming the Gospel in the LCMS: How to Keep Your Congregation Lutheran. He has also written a study on the Book of Revelation called In Search of the Biblical Order.
He can be reached by email at pastorcascione@juno.com.

August 29, 2000