The Council of Presidents Is Your Congregation’s Best Friend

By Rev. John L. Heins

It is a sad era in the life of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to observe continuing, unwarranted attacks against Synod’s Council of Presidents (COP) and against individual District Presidents. For more than a decade the unofficial press, secret websites and public e-mails have deliberately heaped coordinated, biased, uninformed and relentless abuse upon the COP.

Because the COP neither responds to nor corrects these attacks, many uninformed people have accepted, without question, this barrage of misinformation and (sometimes) slander. The results have been harmful: the reputation of the COP and its members is tarnished, their ministry is made more difficult, and the trust level within the LCMS is lessened. Accurate, honest information needs to be shared!

Synod’s President, five Vice-presidents and the thirty-five District Presidents make up the COP. The Secretary of Synod is not a member of the Council, but provides staff support and Handbook expertise. Synod’s Board of Directors sets the COP’s budget. All COP members are proven leaders. The majority have served faithfully as congregational pastors and in other ministries.

Bylaw 3.930 spells out these responsibilities:

Receiving advice and counsel from Synod’s President

Providing support, counsel and edification for one another

Serving as Synod’s Board of Assignments (placing graduates of Synod’s universities and seminaries in parishes and other ministries)

Selecting individuals to serve other synodical entities as prescribed by the Bylaws

Carrying out other duties as Synod determines

The COP meets three times a year, usually at the International Center in St. Louis. The April meeting, when the COP places candidates into ministry positions, opens at one seminary and concludes at the other.

The COP has never assumed responsibilities not assigned by the Synod. The Chairman does not speak for the Council unless specifically directed to do so in writing by the Council. Otherwise he speaks for himself. Members of the COP who serve on additional synodical entities do not represent the COP, but the church at large. When the COP does speak to the Synod on a specific matter, it is done in writing, agreed to by the vote of the whole Council, and then signed by the Secretary of the COP.

A regular criticism of District Presidents is that they do not discipline church workers who have been accused of violating the Scriptures and/or Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws. In reality, the opposite is true. There is hardly a DP who does not, at any given time, have a church worker under proper church discipline. Most cases are resolved and never made public (as it should be). Although it is sometimes necessary, District Presidents do not desire to remove church workers. As much as possible in accordance with Scripture, DPs would rather restore church workers for continued service in the church. Everyone benefits—–the worker, the worker’s family, the congregation and the church at large.

Critics who push DPs to exercise punitive church discipline should remember that Matthew 18 expects offended individuals first to approach a brother or sister out of love. Only when all avenues of repentance/reconciliation have been exhausted, including Article VIII of Synod’s Constitution, should the matter be brought to the District President. If the offended believes that the DP has not properly handled the matter, he/she may appeal to the Synod’s Praesidium (Synod’s President and five Vice-presidents).

Anyone who believes this does not understand the Call process. When a congregational vacancy occurs, the congregation forms a Call Committee. This committee seeks the advice of the DP (Bylaw 2.45) and requests a Call list. The congregation can accept or reject this list, and congregational members may offer other names for consideration, though neighboring pastors, outside political forces, websites and others ought not submit names. The DP may eliminate names that are submitted because of unavailable or limited information. The DP then presents the finalized list to the congregation, and the congregation must, by vote, accept the list before a Call can be issued. Does this sound like DP control? Certainly not!

Sadly, the calling process is being undermined by pastors who offer their names directly to the calling congregation via friends, relatives or neighboring pastors. Political forces also interfere, wanting only a certain type of pastor to be called. Congregations need to protect their calling process by excluding all outside forces. Ask, “Where did this name come from?” and listen to your congregation’s best friend, your District President!

(Those old enough to remember “the good old days gone by” will recall a simpler calling process. The DP provided three names for a Call list, with no congregational input. Call list information included the pastor’s name, present congregation, address, age, marital status and number of children—to see if they would all fit in the parsonage. The DP then would pen, “Call Pastor C. and you will be happy.” They did and they were!)

Response: Regardless of your bent, the LCMS needs leaders. Over the years the COP has provided evangelical leadership that guided the church through many a stormy gale. I ask you now: Instead of the COP, would you rather the seminaries and universities assigned their own graduates? Isn’t it unusual enough that they certify their own products?

DPs shouldn’t dictate who will be district reconcilers!

Response: They don’t! Qualifications for district reconcilers are set by Synod. Candidates for this position are proposed by the Circuit Counselors of the district. The District Board of Directors then elects the reconcilers. No DP control here!

DPs control district budgets!

Response: District budgets are based upon congregations’ annual commitments and the District’s mission and ministry priorities. The District’s Board of Directors studies, prays over and then, by vote, sets the annual budget.

         DPs should be parish pastors, as they were in the ‘40s and ‘50s!

Response: Most DPs would love to be full-time parish pastors. As it is, they are pastors to the church workers and their families and to congregations of their respective districts. If you could really turn back not only the clock, but also the church to the ‘40s and ‘50s, a time of trust, love and mission in the LCMS, District Presidents could easily serve a congregation full-time and their District too!

Love and support the Council of Presidents and your own District President. They honor and serve you well!

Rev. John L. Heins served as President of the Michigan District from 1985 to 1997 and Chairman of the COP from 1989 to 1997.