# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S198
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

9. STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Synod—on an equitable basis by units of preaching and
hearing. One may be reminded of Luther’s bipartite
definition of the Church as comprising hearers and those
who preach to them: “holy believers and lambs who hear the
voice of their Shepherd” (Smalcald Articles III XII 2).
These same apparent desires, for Synod to be composed
fundamentally of units of preaching and hearing
(Pfarrgemeinden or pastor-congregations) and to maintain
equity between the laity and the clergy at the conventions
of the Synod, led to establishment of advisory membership
when Synod was formed in 1847. This category was created
to allow pastors to fulfill their desire to join the Synod while
their congregations yet desired to remain independent.
Typically, in the early period of the Synod, a large number
of those pastors in attendance at conventions were
advisory members, entitled to voice at the convention but
no vote.
Thus, while the understanding and intention of the Synod
is clear regarding voting representation at conventions of
the Synod—a parish being the total number of
congregations cared for by a pastor (or pastors)—unique
situations occurred and were addressed by the Synod. One
of these situations was the practice of forming a
Gesammtgeminde as Lutheranism expanded in certain
cities. Perhaps the most notable of these was the
Gesammtgeminde in St. Louis. In 1847, due to the growth of
Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Louis, where C.F.W. Walther
was the pastor, the congregation started a school and
church on a second location, which took the name of
Immanuel. Initially Immanuel was not an independent
congregation. In 1856, a third school and then church were
added, which caused a re-evaluation of the arrangement.
The solution was the division of the Gesammtgemeinde into
three “districts.” In this arrangement, while the
Gesammtgemeinde would nominate pastors for a vacant
congregation, each “district” or congregation would
actually elect him, with the result that each congregation
was cared for by its own pastor even though the
congregations were related to one another in the
Gessamtgemeinde.
The question thus arose: at conventions of the Synod and
district, was this group of congregations to be understood
as one Pfarrgemeinde, entitled to only one pair of delegates?
The situation was brought to the 1866 convention of the
Synod for resolution, and the convention determined that
each congregation with its own independent pastor was to
be recognized as a congregation entitled to be represented
at conventions by an ordained and a lay delegate. The sense
of congregation or parish, taken together as equivalent to the
German Pfarrgemeinde, thus is more flexible than the oftenapplied, modern-day rule, as stated in the since-removed
1963 Bylaw 3.09: “If a pastor serves two or more
congregations, these shall be regarded as one parish and
shall be entitled to only one lay vote.” While this bylaw was
removed in 1981, without replacement, this interpretation
198 | PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 (67TH) LCMS CONVENTION

has been consistently applied since. In the early period,
however, congregations having pastors in common might
still be separate Pfarrgemeinden, so long as each had a distinct
pastor to call its own (head) pastor.
Today as well, there are unique situations occurring which
raise complex problems for representation and for which
the current bylaws do not provide a means of addressing.
To give two examples:
• Congregations A & B have formed a twocongregation parish and have been regularly
served by a pastor. After that pastor took a call, the
situation of those two congregations was such
that it would be difficult to support a pastor. A
larger Congregation C, which has its own pastor
(Pastor 1), offers to help solve their dilemma by
having the new pastor of Congregations A & B
(Pastor 2) assist at Congregation C for one day a
week and paying a portion of the salary. The pastor
of Congregation C has no responsibilities in
Congregations A & B. Congregations A & B have
their own pastor (Pastor 2), and Congregation C
has its own pastor (Pastor 1). Pastor 2 merely
assists part-time at Congregation C.
• Congregations D & E both have their own pastor,
and because of their size both are in need of some
additional pastoral help. However, neither has the
size or resources to call an associate pastor on their
own. To resolve their situations, Congregations D
& E decide, in addition to the pastor that each one
has, to call a pastor between them, who would
split his time serving both congregations. Here
congregations D and E each have their own pastor,
but a third pastor is shared, assisting at both and
“the (head) pastor” of neither.
In both of these examples, since, in each case one of the
pastors is serving all of the congregations, present
interpretation makes all the congregations involved
become a multi-congregation parish, entitled to one pair of
delegates at the district convention and for the President of
the Synod.
The resolution adopted in 1866, however, would seem to
indicate that in these examples, while these congregations
or parishes have some sort of a joint arrangement or
relationship, each congregation-or-parish (e.g., the parish
comprised of A and B, and the congregations being C, D, and
E) has its own independent pastor, and each congregation-orparish should be allowed to be represented by two
delegates at a district convention, one ordained and one
lay. Bylaws as they currently exist, however, make no
provision for this possibility, and in addition pose
significant problems in allowing this to take place. For
example, the current bylaws allow any ordained minister
called by a congregation to be designated as the pastoral
delegate of that congregation. In the example of
Resolutions