Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 189

2026 Convention Workbook
154 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
15
miles22 (these are displayed on a logarithmic scale due to the great variation in the geographic size of 1 
electoral circuits). Northern Illinois and South Wisconsin (and the Great Lakes Region, in general) have the 2 
most compact visitation circuits, with a median radius below 10 miles. Among geographical districts, 3 
Montana and Wyoming have the highest median radii at ~80 and ~50 miles, respectively (these increase to 4 
~110 and ~85 miles for electoral circuits, when combination is taken into account) ; Great Plains and West-5 
Southwest regions are similarly challenged with relatively large visitation circuits that tend to combine into 6 
significantly larger electoral circuits (this is, of course, even more the case with the nongeographic districts). 7 
These data highlight, especially in those districts and regions where congregations are more geographically 8 
dispersed, the significant difference between visitation circuit expanse (these having no minimum 9 
parameters except common sense) and electoral circuit expanse, which may render visitation, gathering for 10
regular Winkels and circuit forums, convocations, or other functionsmuch more difficult or even impractical.11
Presently, there is pressure to increase the size of visitation circuits to maximize representation, rather than 12
combining adjacent visitation circuit, generally “inefficiently,” into combined electoral circuits and “losing” 13
representation. However, the value of the visitation circuit as such may be greater —if it is working well —14
than the incremental value of greater Synod convention representation. This may be increasingly true as 15
pressures (vacancy and MDiv “droughts,” cultural, demographic, and economic pressures —as well as 16
potential for new planting and revitalization opportunities) can only increase the need for visitation and for 17
circuits to work meaningfully and regularly together.18
Another important aspect of visitation circuit formation (in addition to electoral circuit formation) is the 19
having “critical mass” available to elect a circuit visitor and a pastoral delegate and alternate for the Synod 20
convention. Figure 10 shows the distribution of installed, non -SMP pastors per visitation circuit (left) and 21
the number of installed pastor FTEs per circuit (right), as reported on the Parochial Service Report (the 22
shadow on the right indicates the installed total plus the number of FTEs currently reported as being called).23
(Note that emeriti pastors are eligible to serve as circuit visitors, but not as delegates/alternates; nonetheless, 24
they are not included in the counts above.) In the West-Southwest Region and in a number of other districts, 25
a quarter or more of visitation circuits have six or fewer non-SMP installed pastors and a similar number of 26
total FTEs. A handful of circuits have fewer than four or even two. Such circuits are highly pressured to 27
identify eligible pastors to serve as visitor and delegate, and probably have lack “critical mass” to support 28
winkels, forums, and convocations in a fulsome way. (It is possible, at the same time, that extreme 29
geographic isolation, for example, may be a reason the circuits are as they are.) As the task force looks at 30
adjusting electoral and (to some extent) visitation circuit parameters (the latter are not specified numerically 31
22 Due to issues with projection, the radius of circuits involving Hawaii and the Church of All Nations in Hong Kong are inaccurate.
Figure 10: Number of eligible (non-SMP) installed pastors (left) and total installed pastor FTEs (right) per visitation circuit
16
at present) the task force will want to be sure that the non -electoral functions of the circuits are not 1 
negatively impacted.2 
9. Concluding Thoughts3 
This whitepaper intends to provide useful, baseline background for the task force as it undertakes its work. 4 
It is certainly not thought to be exhaustive of the information the task force may want or need to consider.5 
The Office of the Secretary and Department of Rosters, Statistics, and Research Services stands at the ready 6 
to provide further analytical and/or survey work needed. This paper has also been shared with the Council 7 
of Presidents at its September 2024 meeting, with the request that any input for the task force be shared with 8 
the Office of the Secretary for distribution to the task force.9 
This paper is not intended to and does not identify a particular solution (though it does survey and extend 10
on a variety of proposals previously suggested). Neither does it definitively identify the numerical or 11
philosophical questions that will identify or refine whatever solution (if any modification is, in fact warranted) 12
the task force will ultimately recommend. It is hoped that the paper will, however, support the task force in 13
rapidly identifying such questions and the means necessary to work through them to identify a well -14
reasoned recommendation or recommendations.15