Changes in Congregations Should Lead to Changes in Synod’s Structure

By Charles S. Mueller, Sr.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States was founded in 1847 to support congregations in their ministries.  In the eight score years since then, the congregations making up the Synod, now numbering over 6,000 in comparison to the original 12, experienced many changes, each in their own way.  It makes sense that Synod’s structure should adapt itself to new circumstances.  The proposals of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance go in the direction of de-centralization, yielding a leaner structure of boards and staff.

For the first one hundred years the LCMS was made up of congregations that that came in one of two sizes: small or large.  In either case they functioned in essentially the same way.   If they could speak loudly enough, pastors were interchangeable regardless of parish size or location.   All did parish ministry the same way.  One size fit all.  What they did was the same thing: gather and care primarily for Lutherans.

By the 1950s it became increasingly clear that all parishes and their ministries were not alike.  A number of different congregational types were developing.  Some were Preaching Stations.  Others were Family Parishes, or Pastor Parishes, or Organizational Parishes, or Resource Parishes or Community Parishes to cite but a few types.  They were what their names suggested.  Over time it became clear that they were not organized the same way, nor for their health sake, could they be.  While sharing a common faith they did not do church the same way.  That stirred institutional unrest and tension.  And more and more were becoming intentionally missional.

Further, these different kinds of parishes needed and developed different kinds of clergy leaders who required a broad range of skills, many not taught at the seminaries.  But the LCMS organizes its congregations geographically not by size or operational style or mission intent.  In the end congregations of one given style found themselves with more in common with similar congregations in another district than with many congregations in their own  districts.  Even within a certain size parishes deal with a wide range of ministry challenges like financial resources, generational distribution, cultural context and urban and rural locale.

Eight Different Types of Congregations

Today there are at least eight different types of congregations in the LCMS.  (Data in support of this assessment has been around for years.)  The pastoral/staff/lay leadership requirements of each type of congregation and it size- and location-specifics can vary markedly from one congregation to another.  In many ways the most demanding and complex effective leadership requirements  today are needed by clergy called to serve congregations worshipping less than 100 people per Sunday.  Even within that size dimension there are parish with a with a wide range of ministry components and variances  (e.g. rural/urban, generational, cultural) vary. 

The bottom line is that our Synod can no longer muddle along in how to support congregations.  If we try to we will only decline further and faster.  We need to explore the matter of congregations in depth while there is still time.  We need to do this openly and together driven by the Great Commission and avoid doing it covertly and alone.

Ministry Realignment

Recognizing this as a need many of our larger LCMS congregations are already linking with similar sized parishes across the nation in the hope that by working together they can help their pastors and parishes, improve in ministry and outreach effectiveness.  This scares some. They feel intimidated.  Instead of distancing ourselves from this kind of development we need to search for ways to rescale and expand our efforts in ministerial realignment to the benefit of congregations of various sizes, of significant ministerial variety and of service locale.  The LCMS needs to vigorously investigate and strategize how its parishes in all categories may best be developed, linked and served regardless of district membership or geographical location.  

Where should the impetus for such realignment come from?  Top-down is cumbersome and would be resisted by many.  After 160 plus years it seems quite clear that sustained congregational change happens best and the quickest bottom-up.

Synod shines brightest when it helps such development happen.  A lot of institutional bureaucracy is not needed.  Agreed?  That being so, doesn’t it make sense to start bolstering congregations by realigning our structure to just a Commission on National Mission and a Commission on International Mission—both mission-of-the-church oriented?