Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 180

2026 Convention Workbook
145
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
which do not share knowledge of each other and which would need 
to elect delegates who are unknown to each other would create its 
own set of problems.
The task force discussed simply changing the composition of 
circuits from “congregations” to “parishes” and thus acknowl-
edging the growing number of multi-congregation parishes being 
formed due to declining size and ability to support a full-time pas-
tor. This was also seen as a means to encourage circuits to have a vi-
able number of actively serving pastors to support the health and vi-
tality of those visitation circuits. Without a “critical mass” number 
of pastors within visitation circuits, the circuit will find it difficult 
to network together “for [the] mutual care, support, advice, study, 
ecclesiastical encouragement, service, coordination, resources, and 
counsel” for the sake of both congregation and Synod. If a circuit is 
composed of several congregations in dual or tri-parishes, then the 
functioning of the circuit and the pastoral winkels can be adversely 
affected. It was noted from the surveys that winkels suffer if fewer 
than five pastors are present. Having a greater number of pastors is 
beneficial to the health and vitality of both congregation and clergy. 
Requiring six parishes in a circuit rather than seven congregations 
would increase the likelihood of having six or more pastors present 
at winkels. Obviously, this proposal would have a greater effect on 
districts with a higher number of multi-congregation parishes; how-
ever, a change from seven congregations to six parishes would help 
both rural and urban circuits ensure adequate visitation needs as 
well as balanced electoral representation for the Synod convention.
Another option considered by the task force, a so-called “re-
lieved model,” would attempt to provide more flexibility in the size 
of circuits to allow for circuits with larger congregations in urban 
and suburban areas (and therefore well above the confirmed mem -
ber limit) to have fewer congregations, while providing for circuits 
with many small congregations in sparsely populated regions to 
qualify with somewhat fewer members, through the use of a math-
ematical equation. While the current thresholds of congregations 
and communicant members do not take into account the difference 
between larger and smaller congregations, this could potentially 
account for population and geographic differences. Although this 
could provide some stability from triennium to triennium and might 
relieve the pressure on districts to realign circuits, the formula is 
complex and presents its own difficulty to circuits and districts and 
would require much more explanation and understanding to be use-
ful. For these reasons, the task force decided not to recommend this 
option at this time.
Finally, the task force considered completely separating visi-
tation from electoral circuits so that the districts were not in any 
way bound by the boundaries of the visitation circuits in creating 
electoral circuits which would meet the current criteria. Districts 
could conceivably draw different maps for each purpose. Visitation 
circuits would continue to have the purpose of ecclesiastical visi-
tation and pastors’ winkels while electoral circuits could be drawn 
differently for the limited purposes of election of delegates to the 
Synod convention. In this way, the Synod could decide to reduce 
the overall size of the convention both for cost savings and in or -
der to facilitate more deliberation among fewer delegates. The task 
force considered how it might work to simply apportion the number 
of delegates to each district based upon a formula of number of 
congregations and communicant membership and leave it to the 
districts to draw the electoral map based on those numbers, perhaps 
even without geographical constraints. The task force believed that 
such an option represented a fairly radical change both in represen-
ing to minimize their number of exceptions. With this realignment 
and the reduction in exceptions requested and because of the work 
of the Synod President to reduce the number of exceptions grant-
ed, only 7 percent of the 2026 Synod convention electoral circuits 
required and were granted exceptions, instead of the 22 percent 
expected if the districts had done no realignment. This, combined 
with a small but significant slowdown from the projected 8–9 per -
cent triennial drop in confirmed membership to closer to 7 percent, 
has relieved the situation for the moment, but this will not remove 
the necessity for the Synod to address this at the 2026 convention to 
prevent even greater challenges down the road. It should be noted 
here that exceptions are not only for those circuits that fall below 
the 1,500 communicant minimum but are also granted for those 
which must exceed the upper limit of 20 congregations in order to 
reach the 1,500-communicant limit.
The task force gave consideration to a number of options. The 
first set of those options was to deal with the matter of exceptions. 
In the past, districts have typically requested exceptions for elec -
toral circuits which fall below the 7 to 20 congregations and 1,500 
to 10,000 communicant member parameters of the Bylaws instead 
of redrawing circuit boundaries so that visitation circuits meet the 
requirements of the Bylaws to be electoral circuits. As the Syn-
od decreases in both the aggregate communicant membership and 
the number of congregations due to closure or consolidation, the 
pressure upon the districts will continue to be felt going forward. 
Some districts may find it more difficult to eliminate the request for 
exceptions because of geographical constraints (the “saltwater” and 
non-geographical districts in particular). Because of this, the task 
force considered the various reasons for exceptions and a means 
to allow continued exceptions but under tighter parameters spelled 
out under bylaw requirements. If no exceptions were permitted, the 
Synod would then place the full responsibility squarely on district 
boards of directors to assure compliant-sized electoral circuits.
Second, the task force considered changing the current upper 
limits for electoral circuits, currently 20 congregations or 10,000 
confirmed members. It was noted that the upper limit of confirmed 
membership number is never reached, but removing the upper limit 
on numbers of congregations (or parishes, as will be addressed lat-
er) could be helpful for some districts in forming electoral circuits. 
With this, the task force considered another limit placed on the for-
mation of visitation circuits into an electoral circuit. Currently, the 
bylaw allows for two adjacent visitation circuits to be formed into 
an electoral circuit; anything else requires the request for an ex-
ception. Removing this limit of two visitation circuits would allow 
more flexibility for districts both to create visitation circuits with 
ideal sizes for ministry needs while allowing them greater flexibili-
ty when they must be combined to form an electoral circuit.
Along with this was the consideration of removing the require-
ment that visitation circuits combining into an electoral circuit be 
“adjacent” and allowing non-adjacent visitation circuits to combine 
into an electoral circuit. The rationale for this was that visitation 
circuits which could be ideal sizes to combine into an electoral cir-
cuit are not always adjacent to each other and that changes in com-
munication technology would facilitate non-adjacent visitation cir-
cuits to meet. However, it was determined that such a change would 
affect only a few districts and circuits and, while helpful, would 
not contribute greatly to the solution of the problem. Furthermore, 
it was feared that such non-adjacent permission might create its 
own problems similar to the gerrymandering seen in the political 
sphere and that cobbling together a patchwork of visitation circuits