# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S183
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
porated at the most fundamental level possible in the agency’s
“other governing documents,” whatever those might be.
The commission finds that, in completing the specific review assigned to it in 2016 Res. 9-02A, it can only safely indicate
that an agency complies with Bylaw 1.5.3.6 when the required
language is included, at least, in the agency’s foundational governing document. An agency having concerns about implementing the required language in its foundational governing document (articles, charter, etc.) is asked to note the following:
••

The commission, having consulted with Synod’s
counsel, determines it is acceptable to preface the
required language with the phrase, “Except to the
extent, if any, that the law requires otherwise …”
Such a qualifier is to be understood, however, in the
sense of Bylaw 1.2.1 [f][2]: “The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod, in referencing the laws of the State
of Missouri in these Bylaws and in the Synod’s
Articles of Incorporation, intends to acknowledge its
responsibility to be subject to civil authority. In all
such references, however, the Synod intends to retain
all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the
laws and Constitution of the United States and the
State of Missouri.” (emphasis added)

••

Bylaw 1.5.3.6 provides for an agency to “submit any
concerns related to the inclusion of subsections (a)
or (b) in its governing documents to the Board of
Directors of the Synod,” which may determine to
permit an exception. The operating understanding
of the commission, which has been asked to indicate
agencies’ compliance with Bylaw 1.5.3.6, is that an
agency unable to include the required language in its
foundational governing document should propose its
alternative means of compliance with Bylaw 1.5.3.6
to the Board of Directors of the Synod. If the Board
of Directors of the Synod approves the agency’s
alternative means (be it incorporation of the included
language in a subsidiary governing document, such
as the Bylaws, or some other means) as compliant
with Bylaw 1.5.3.6, the commission will concur, in its
report to the 2019 convention, with the determination of the Board of Directors. Governing documents
submitted for review to the CCM that require such
consideration will be referred to the Board of Directors of the Synod.

The commission further notes that its opinion that an
agency’s governing documents are in compliance with Bylaw
1.5.3.6 does not imply that the provisions meet all the requirements of the laws of an agency’s jurisdiction.
Adopted May 5–6, 2018

Question Regarding Two Calls
in Different Districts (17-2820)
The Secretary of the Synod brought to the commission a
situation posed by two district presidents:
A district missionary from District A (called by the district) has been serving a pastoral vacancy in a congregation that
is a member of District B. After some years of this arrangement, the congregation has determined it would like to extend a
call to the missionary also to serve as its pastor. This ordained

183

minister would then be both a district missionary in District A
and a called pastor in a District B congregation, with the calling
bodies sharing salary and benefit responsibilities. This poses a
number of questions:
Question 1: Can a called worker have two or more calls simultaneously, or must they be structured as a single
call, issued together by the various calling entities?
Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod nowhere
prohibit a called worker from holding two or more calls
simultaneously. The CCM has previously held (Ag. 2104, May
15, 1998) that in a dual parish, each congregation has, in fact,
issued a call to the shared pastor, whether the congregations
issued calls individually or called the pastor together under a
parish arrangement (see also Ag. 1275, A, B). This is consistent with CCM Opinions dating back at least to 1970 and to
historical practice much earlier.
Question 2: Considering the posed situation and Bylaws
2.12.1.2 and 2.12.1.3, if two or more simultaneous
calls are permissible, can they be from different
districts?
Opinion: Yes. This has been permitted for many years, and
the CCM has previously held (e.g., Ag. 1959, Oct. 16, 1993),
for example, that nothing prohibits a dual parish composed
of congregations in different districts from calling a common
pastor:
There is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws
of the Synod which prevents a pastor from serving two congregations which are in different districts. However, it would be appropriate in such a
circumstance for the district presidents involved
formally to clarify the responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision. As you have indicated, the
pastor holds membership in a specific district
with that district president as his ecclesiastical
supervisor. Nevertheless, one of the congregations which he serves and which is a member of
another district is responsible to the district president of that other district (Article XII 7; Bylaw
4.21 b; 4.73; 4.75). Consequently, it is absolutely
vital, because of the unique inter-relationship,
that there be a formal understanding between
the involved district presidents regarding ecclesiastical supervision.
The simplest approach would, of course, be for one of the
congregations to request a change in district membership.
The commission notes, however, that this is being done, at
present, only by overlooking the plain sense of Bylaw section
2.12, which does not contemplate such an arrangement. Bylaw
2.12.1.2 does not address the situation of a pastor called by congregations in different districts, seeming to imply that he should
be a member therefore of two different districts—which cannot
be the case, as membership in the Synod is held through exactly
one district (e.g., Bylaw 2.12.1).
The commission notes that Bylaw section 2.12, in general,
does not contemplate ministers simultaneously holding multiple
calls, sometimes involving different districts or modes of ecclesiastical supervision, and sometimes suggesting both voting and
advisory participation in the district and Synod. Given the existence of such situations, this deficiency needs to be addressed
2019 Convention Workbook