Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 186

2026 Convention Workbook
151
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS9 
22001100  Ov. 8 -28– 29, 
31– 32 
To reject Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG)  proposal 
to elect Synod convention delegates at district conventions 
  Ov. 8-43 To return to direct representation of each pastor and congregation at the Synod convention 
  Ov. 8-56 To remove distinction of electoral and visitation circuits. Require 10 – 15 congregations in 
geographic proximity , of compact shape. Large congregations of over 2,000 baptized 
members are to be dispersed to the extent possible, starting with metropolitan areas. Allow 
geographical exceptions for circuits with one -way drive time to a central location of more 
than three hours. 
  BRTFSSG 
Ov. 8-44 
Res. 8-05B 
(referred) 
To fix convention voting delegate count at 650, 325 ordained/commissioned ministers and 
325 lay. These would be sent by each district in a number proportional to the average of its 
proportions of member congregations and confirmed members. Election would be by 
circuit caucus at the district convention, the electoral circuits being formed early in the 
convention. 
This resulted in 2010 Res 8 -05B, which was referred to the Commission on Handbook 
(COH). (Ov. 8-44 was similar but with delegates being pastor/lay.) 
While even a resounding rejection of a resolution does not necessarily mean that the delegates shared a 1 
common reason for rejecting it, it does seem likely that the resounding defeat of 2013 Res. 7 -07A— albeit 2 
more than a decade ago — suggests that, despite its challenges, the Synod’s congregations remain quite 3 
attached to the present system, in which visitation circuits gather individually or with neighbors to elect 4 
directly their member congregations’ pastoral and lay representation at the Synod convention. 5 
While various adjustments of parameters have been proposed, this has been done without a great deal of 6 
insight into how these adjustments could not only arrest the decline of but potentially dramatically increase 7 
the size of the Synod convention, or have the potential to encourage districts so inclined to sacrifice stability 8 
or visitation circuit viability for representational share. This is the topic of this document’s next section. 9 
55..  AAnnaallyyssiiss  ooff  PPootteennttiiaall  CChhaannggee  dduuee  ttoo  VVaarriiaattiioonn  ooff  EElleeccttoorraall  CCiirrccuuiitt  FFoorrmmaattiioonn  PPaarraammeetteerrss  10 
What would be the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes to representational 11 
balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7 member 12 
congregations and 1,500 confirmed members)? The answer to this question is not simply mathematical but 13 
also geographical, and the unique features of the districts (principally, distribution of congregation 14 
membership count and geographic dispersal of congregations with large membership) make it impossible 15 
to adopt a generally useful “rule of thumb.” Recalling Figure 1, the number of congregations in the Synod 16 
suggest the possibility of 825 electoral circuits (for the 2023 convention) and the number of confirmed 17 
members, 930, but the actual number of electoral circuits, 532, is 64% of the one (districts ranging from 43% 18 
to 89%) and 57% of the other (districts ranging from 40% to 100%). 19 
A set of experiments was conducted using a heuristic Max-P Regionalization algorithm13 adapted to make use 20 
of multiple spatially extensive regional attribute thresholds (in this case,  principally, number of 21 
congregations and collective confirmed membership, but also in some instances the number of parishes or 22 
non-SMP pastors installed). Max-P attempts to cluster a set of geographic areas into the maximum number 23 
of “homogeneous” regions such that each cluster satisfies such thresholds. In this instance, the measure of 24 
 
13 https:/ /pysal.org/spopt/notebooks/maxp.html. 999 iterations were used, with 10 rounds of simulated annealing on each viable 
partition. The code was adapted by the author to allow multiple dimensions of spatially extensive thresholds and fo r generalized 
threshold functions (i.e., not requiring simply x congregations and y confirmed members but satisfaction of a function of x and y) 
and corrected to avoid a deadlock condition. 
10 
“homogeneity” is strictly geographical; the latitude and longitude were used as the homogeneity variables 1 
to keep the circuits formed as geographically compact as possible.  2 
These experiments have important limitations. Being a stochastic, heuristic algorithm, there is no guarantee 3 
that the algorithm achieves the maximum number of electoral circuits possible. It is theoretically possible 4 
that it understates to some (likely small) degree the number of electoral circuits possible. It also assumes no 5 
exceptions, which we know are presently occurring at a rate of about 11%. More importantly, it may ignore 6 
important geographical features (i.e., mountain ranges, bodies of water, non-Euclidean travel times) or the 7 
many other factors that rightly go into the selection of visitation and electoral circuits. It is likely that, 8 
because of all these factors, the algorithm  likely somewhat overstates the number of reasonably achievable 9 
circuits.  10 
Nonetheless, noting that 15% of 2023 circuits are already exceptional relative to SY2022 data,14 the number 11 
of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2022 data for a given district varied from 96% to 139% 15 of those aligned 12 
for the 2023 convention, with a median (coincidentally) of 111%  (standard deviation 12%). Some districts 13 
(e.g., AT, CNH, NJ, OK, PSW, SELC, SE, SW, TX, WY) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize 14 
representation16 (Max-P forms 4% fewer to 5% more circuits); others (CI, MNS, MT, ND, NE, NEB, NI, NW, 15 
OH, RM, SD, SI) are far ther from such  (Max-P forms 20– 39% more circuits), possibly reflecting other 16 
alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long-term rather than continually realign to maximize 17 
representation. 18 
These preliminaries out of the way, we will now evaluate, for a variety of parameter selections, the extent to 19 
which a given set of parameters : (1) renders presently or likely- soon-to-be exceptional circuits 20 
unexceptional; and (2) would give districts the option  of optimizing their representation to new, lower 21 
standards, increasing their representation share and the size of the total convention delegation.  Max-P 22 
enables the second measure. 23 
Table 2: Percent of 2023 convention circuits (assuming no realignment  or recombination of visitation circuits , and an 8 – 9% 24 
triennial drop in confirmed membership) that would require exceptions for the 2026 (see text), 2029, and 2032 conventions 25 
Congregations  
Confirmed Members  Confirmed Members  Confirmed Members  
800 1000 1200 1500  800 1000 1200 1500  800 1000 1200 1500 
4 0% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 29%  1% 5% 18% 39% 
5 1% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 30%  2% 5% 18% 39% 
6 1% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 30%  2% 5% 19% 40% 
7 2% 3% 6% 22%  2% 4% 11% 31%17  3% 7% 20% 41% 
 SY2024 proj. (2026 convention)  SY2027 proj. (2029 convention)  SY2030 proj. (2032 convention) 
Under the assumption that districts do not realign or recombine 2023 circuits, Table 2 shows, for a variety of 26 
combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and minimum confirmed 27 
members) the estimated proportion of 2023 circuits (assuming an 8 – 9% triennial drop in confirmed 28 
membership and no congregation closures or mergers) that would require exceptions for the 2026,18 2029, and 29 
2032 conventions. As indicated previously, 22% of existing 2023 electoral circuits would require exceptions 30 
 
14 11% were exceptional at the time 2023 convention representation was fixed on the basis of SY2021 data. 
15 If Max-P is taken as an “upper bound” on the number of possible circuits, district “efficiency” at forming “optimal representation” 
circuits ranges from 72% to 104% (median 90%; value in excess of 100% possible due to exceptions) . Max-P, taking into account 
geographical constraints, presents a tighter upper bound on the number of unexceptional electoral circuits possible to form given a 
particular set of parameters. It is useful as a bound but not likely useful as a method, as it takes into account only optimization for 
maximum representation and that, with an imperfect understanding of real travel times. 
16 This is not the only, and perhaps not the most important factor for “optimization” of visitation and electoral circuits. 
17 These are not evenly distributed: 65% of non-geographical circuits, 45% of those in the WSW region, and 39% of those in the ESE 
region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2023 circuits in 2029, with 15– 30% requiring them in other regions. 
18 Note that any changes to the circuit formation parameters would take effect subsequent to the 2026 convention; hence, the shading 
of all but the lower-right corner of the 2026 frame.