Official Workbook PDF page source text

2026 Convention Workbook 175

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

Question 1: Is there any circumstance under Bylaw 2.13.1 in which an SMP might have supervisory authority over a commissioned worker?

Opinion: Yes, in limited circumstances.

The commission must first clarify the sense of “supervisory authority” in the question. Whether an SMP can exercise “employment” supervision, generally, over others employed by his parish is a matter of the congregation’s self-governance (Constitution Article VII), into which the commission does not intrude. The commis - sion specifically addresses pastoral oversight, 3 that being the sense in which the holder (sole or senior pastor of the congregation) of the Office of the Holy Ministry in that place oversees the doctrine, practice, and life of those occupying any auxiliary offices in the congregation, a consequence of their offices assisting and being responsible to the Office of the Holy Ministry he bears (cf. Walther’s Ministry Thesis VIII).

As explained above, Bylaw 2.13.1’s main paragraph limits the development of an SMP to a “specific Word and Sacrament ministry context” for which the training, which lacks necessarily the breadth and depth of general pastoral formation, in the judgment of the district president, can be expected adequately to prepare him. His subsequent calls are limited to ones for which the district president can certify his limited training as preparing him.

Bylaw 2.13.1 (a), as explained above, does not address the pastoral

authority of an SMP within his context (call, parish) and therefore does not itself preclude his role being defined to include supervision of, for example, a commissioned minister within his parish.

This does not diminish the responsibility of the district president to approve the training and calling of SMPs to only those specific ministry contexts for which the training is adequate and for which more fully prepared options are not available (2013 Res. 5-04B).

While the commission cannot foreclose the possibility (e.g., with regard to an SMP who also served capably as a commissioned teacher/principal) that a particular SMP could be equipped to exercise pastoral oversight, within his parish, over a commissioned auxiliary minister, it does not find this ordinarily to be the case—a position supported by, for example, 2013 Res. 5-04B’s assertion that SMPs not be used where a commissioned minister could fulfill the duties. Ultimately, however, this lies within the determination by the district president that the specific ministry context (call, parish), involving as it does whatever supervisory capacities with regard to auxiliary offices present in the context, is one for which the necessarily limited training of an SMP adequately prepares him.

Question 2:

For example, if a large congregation with a staff of senior pastor, SMP, a director of Christian educa - tion, a full day school staff, and a director of parish music experiences a vacancy in the senior pastor position, what would be the appropriate relationship between the SMP and the commissioned workers?

Question 3:

If the answers to the above questions indicate that there is never a circumstance that an SMP might have supervisory authority over a commissioned worker, would that obligate congregations in the scenario envisioned above to engage a vacancy pastor in order to maintain proper supervisory authority over not only the SMP, but also all commissioned workers involved?

Opinion (regarding Questions 2 and 3): Relationships inherent to the SMP’s current call would be unchanged. As to relationships which there is no option of a more fully trained minister. The convention adopted this resolution citing the prior report of the SMP task force, as follows: “Special circumstances (e.g., small parishes which cannot afford a pastor) exist. Flexibility is vital as the church fulfills her vocational calling to preach the Gospel to everyone everywhere. While the church cannot maintain her theological integ - rity, fidelity, and courage in these bewitching times unless she has an overall well-trained and doctrinally steeped ministerium, special circumstances warrant less-trained pastors so the means of grace can be delivered by a called and ordained pastor. Therefore the task force recommends the retention of the SMP program for special circumstances” (id., 139–40).

The SMP program remains an exceptional path to the exercise of the pastoral office and not the ordinary one. To ignore this distinction is to violate the very provisions by which the SMP program was conceived and for which it was established. Clearly, the train - ing ordinarily provided for an SMP does not prepare him adequately for every type of parish call, even for every one that exercises pastoral oversight only within the parish context. As Bylaw 2.13.1 and the fifth resolved of 2013 Res. 5-04B make clear, “the respective district president remains responsible for determining the appropriateness of the specific ministry” (id., 139), a responsibility that must be undertaken with deliberate care and wise judgment about the content and adequacy of SMP training for the responsibility and authority to be exercised within a particular call to a particular parish. (The Council of Presidents as such [or as the Board of Assignments, Bylaw 3.10.1.3] may also have a role with respect to the definition of such contexts, at least initially, as these men are “placed by the Council of Presidents into a specific Word and Sacrament ministry context” [Bylaw 2.13.1].)

Finally, while the question fundamentally turns on the interpreta - tion of Bylaw 2.13.1, the SMP program is set forth by 2007 Res.

5-01B, and it is also incumbent on the commission to weigh the significance of this resolution (and others) relative to the question at hand. To the commission, the training of an SMP as described in the enabling and subsequent resolutions and in the SMP Policy Manual (2021) of Concordia Seminary, which the commission examined, does not appear to contemplate service at the head of a parish staff including a school or professional church worker auxiliary offices (commissioned ministers). That the preparation of a typical SMP 2 is less in some respects than that of a commissioned minister is reflected by the prohibition of 2013 Res. 5-04B. A careful judgment is required of the district president as to a particular ministry context (call, parish) and to some extent to a particular man, whether the service of an SMP in a given capacity is appropriate. This judgment is unique to every case, and is not the purview of the commission, but of the district president.

The commission offers that the SMP program has been addressed in some fashion by each convention since its adoption in 2007 and that, as it continues to account for an increasing proportion of or - dained ministers in the Synod—which, in local areas, has become significant—elements of its implementation continue to present challenging unclarities and require district presidents to exercise significant judgment with little clear and concrete guidance. Such is the genesis of these questions and of this opinion, which had to be rendered on some very fine historical distinctions of few bylaw words. This is perhaps itself a call for the convention to assess and clarify yet again.