Witness, Mercy, Life Together — District Convention Representation

March 19th, 2012 Post by

Found on Witness, Mercy, Life Together blog:

 

With three district conventions down and 32 to go, delegate representation is a subject of considerable interest and conversation in the Synod. This blog provides an opportunity to address five frequently asked questions.

  1. Q: How has delegate representation changed from previous conventions?  A: Actually, representation has not changed. Article V A of the Synod’s Constitution still determines delegate representation at district conventions: “At meetings of the districts of the Synod, every congregation or parish is entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay delegate.”
  2. Q: Well, something has changed. Why must some congregations now share a lay delegate when they had not done so in the past? A: We are more now applying more consistently and uniformly the historical definition for a “parish” in our Synod: “Two or more congregations served by the same pastor.” With the assistance of our Rosters and Statistics Department, this definition is being painstakingly applied across the Synod to make certain that congregations are represented equally and fairly throughout our 35 districts.
  3. Q: If nothing has changed, why are some congregations that were previously regarding as ”permanently vacant” now regarded as part of a “parish”? A: The decision by the 2010 Synod convention that delegates to district conventions would also be the voters in the election of the President of the Synod prompted greater care in determining those situations to which “parish” is to be applied. A phrase from Bylaw 2.11.1 is pivotal: “regularly performing the duties of…an ordained minister.” Accordingly, a pastor providing regular Word and Sacrament ministry is being regarded as the congregation’s pastor for delegate representation purposes. If he is providing such regular ministry to two or more congregations, he is serving a multi-congregation parish.
  4. Q: Are there any exceptions to this rule? A: Yes. If a congregation is in the process of actively calling a pastor, it is regarded as truly “vacant” even though it is receiving regular word and sacrament ministry from a pastor. The above (#3) applies only to what were once regarded as “permanent vacancies.”
  5. Q: What about congregations that have been served by “emeritus” pastors? A: Congregations (or parishes) receiving regular word and sacrament ministry from a rostered pastor of the Synod deserve two delegate votes at their district conventions: a pastoral vote and a lay vote. The roster status of “emeritus” pastors (advisory and therefore non-voting) is being changed to “active” status when possible to reflect the fact that they are providing regular Word and Sacrament ministry to a congregation of the Synod. Such roster status change does not adversely affect retirement status or benefits. It does provide the congregation with its rightful privilege of two votes (pastoral and lay) at district conventions and in the election of the President of the Synod.

There are, of course, many other questions that arise while working through this process with our 35 districts and their conventions. You may wish to respond to this blog with such questions.

Ray Hartwig






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Rev. David Mueller
    March 19th, 2012 at 16:56 | #1

    There is an effort underway to memorialize the 2013 synodical convention to allow each separate congregation at least a lay vote. There are pros and cons to this. it’s a discussion worth having.

  2. Rev. David Mueller
    March 19th, 2012 at 16:58 | #2

    Oh, and Dr. Hartwig ought to be given a great deal of thanks for having to deal with this huge and convoluted mess of a change to the electoral process in our synod. He is *scrupulously* fair. I think the fact that he has held the position for so long, without any serious challenge is testament to that fact.

  3. LW
    March 20th, 2012 at 08:13 | #3

    It’s difficult to keep a balance between pastoral and lay votes when so many congregations do not have a called pastor.

  4. Rev. David Mueller
    March 20th, 2012 at 10:45 | #4

    @LW #3
    That’s one issue. My first question in *all* of this is–How does our theology–doctrine of what the Church is–drive how we organize ourselves? I had a big problem with the idea that big congregations ought to get more delegates, because that would suggest that a small congregation has less of the Body of Christ, when He Himself said, “Wherever two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” When, a couple weeks ago, there were literally 3 of us at one of my 2 churches for the Lenten Vespers, was there less of Christ present? To judge by size is to judge by sight, not according to the Word of Christ.

    But then, the question needs to be asked on the other side, too, wrt multi-point parishes. How would the proposed change reflect our proper Scriptural Christ-crucified-centered ecclesiology? I’m not saying I know for sure. It may be better. but I haven’t thought it all through, yet, and I wonder what other folks think.

    My immediate reaction (and I did vote in favor of just such an overture from our circuit forum) is that it is a good idea. It certainly seems advantageous *politically*–especially to me, as I serve a dual parish. But I want to make sure it really would fit with our doctrine, first. Yes, “polity is adiaphora”, but “adiaphora” does *not* mean we can do whatever we want, without even thinking about the theology that would be confessed by a particular action.

  5. Rev. Roger D. Sterle
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:04 | #5

    @Rev. David Mueller #4
    I believe that the original intent of Walther et al was that the synod would have equal representation–one lay and one pastoral. It would seem to me that that system has served us well. Were we to go to a system where larger churches get more votes we could have the possibility that three districts alone could “control” the convention because by their size and the number of larger churches in each they would have more than a majority of the votes. I believe that Hales corner, Wisconsin with about 8,000+ members would have almost as many votes available as would the whole of the Wyoming District–realizing this would only be at District Conventions. While I can understand the feelings of those in dual parishes [I have served three now] it would be a mistake I think to allow each congregation of a parish to have a lay vote. My reason is simply that such would continue the thought that we are not a parish but still three individual congregations who just happen to be served by one pastor. Two cents completed.

  6. Jason
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:30 | #6

    Don’t know if it’s relevant, but with multi-point parishes, congregations or what-have-you, with one shared pastor… so 2 or 3 lay votes but still only 1 pastoral vote? FYI, e_ca set the quota at 60-40 lay to pastoral. Granted they have so many issues, but their CWA’s skew towards the laity being more in charge. While many of them can be good, as a whole I just don’t see them with as much theological insight as the ministerium. So the good Lutheran question is, “What does this mean?”

  7. The PPPadre
    March 21st, 2012 at 13:28 | #7

    My concern was born during the discussion at the last synodical convention when someone raised the question of multi-point parishes that are served by a multi-pastor staff. Would these parishes be permitted more than one pastoral delegate?

    The cynical side of my brain thought this might be an end run by mega parishes. If multi-point parishes (which, theologically, are single congregations meeting in multiple locations) are to receive additional representation, why shouldn’t mega churches receive extra delegates for each satellite campus? And taking that one step further (given the direction the SMP program has gone), what about multiple congregations meeting on the same campus? Should they be entitled to a pastoral and a lay delegate each? So the older adult congregation and their pastor, the twenty-somethings/college students and their pastor, the Hispanic congregation and their pastor, and the Hmong congregation and their pastor, all of whom are meeting at Relevant Church (and all of whom are also named Relevant Church) all get a pastoral and lay delegate in addition to the pastoral and lay delegates from the Relevant Church whose facilities they are using for their services.

    God strengthen me if such cynicism is guarding against the wiles of Satan. God forgive me if such cynicism is breaking the 8th Commandment.

  8. Rev. Roger D. Sterle
    March 21st, 2012 at 15:26 | #8

    @The PPPadre #7
    I am not so sure that it would really be cynical–I heard some of that talk at the last convention as groups were trying to figure out how they could get their voice heard!!

  9. Rev. David Mueller
    March 29th, 2012 at 16:33 | #9

    Sterle, PPPadre, Jason: You all raise valid concerns. This is why, though I did vote to get that overture to our district convention, I do have my doubts about whether it’s really a good idea. In the end, I’m coming to the conclusion that I will vote against that idea, should it make it to the floor of the IN Dist. convention as a resolution. It opens too many cans of worms.

    To be sure, it’s worth noting that each *congregation* *is currently* entitled to a lay vote, regardless of multi-point parish status, *at the circuit fora*. For some reason, the same rule doesn’t apply there. For what it’s worth, keep that in mind this late summer/fall, when it comes time to hold the Fora for electing synodical convention delegates.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.