# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S200
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

200

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

This definition has more recently been applied to groups
of congregations served by the same two or more pastors (CCM
Op. 02-2321, 09-2545, 11-2617), and to congregations which
may not all have called the same pastor(s), but are all served by
him/them (1972 Ag. 305; 1978 Ag. 1275A, B; Op. 11-2618, 142718). These applications, however, do not appear to have been
contemplated before the modern era.
Question 3: Does the manner in which an amendment occurred (e.g., unintended elision or adoption by the
Synod in convention) permit the commission to
amend the text of the Constitution or Bylaws in a
manner that causes its text to differ substantially
from the text that has been delivered to the members of the Synod?
Opinion: The commission was unsure of the precise intent of
the question. The Commission on Handbook is charged with
the maintenance and management of the Handbook, consisting of the Constitution, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation
of the Synod (Bylaw 3.9.4). In carrying out this work it revises
the Handbook following every convention. At times, it may, in
consultation with the Commission on Constitutional Matters,
make a non-substantive change in the bylaws for the sake of
clarity of a particular bylaw or to correct errors made in the
publication process.
It is not the business of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to amend the text of the Bylaws, although it may, in
a case where the Constitution or other Bylaws render certain
language unconstitutional or inapplicable, have to indicate
that such language is inoperative until it can be corrected by a
convention. In this specific instance, the question seems to be
whether the commission was correct, in its 2009 and prior opinions on this matter, to apply the previous definition of parish,
even though the explicit statement of this definition had been
removed from the bylaws in 1981.
Where a definition has been removed from the bylaws by a
convention, the circumstances of its removal are important in
determining the significance, if any, of the removal to the meaning of the defined term(s). In 1981, the definition appears to
have been removed as part of a sweeping revision of bylaws,
only part of which was adopted. In reviewing the related material, the commission was unable to discern any sense that the convention intended to rescind the definition, the explicit statement
of which it was removing from the bylaws, or to detect any sense
of a new intended definition with which it might be replaced.
As noted in the various opinions since, the Synod continued to
operate, between 1981 and present, on the previously explicit
definition of parish as the commonly understood definition.
Furthermore, here, the question is one of constitutional interpretation: What does congregation-or-parish mean in Const.
Art. V? How the convention changed the bylaws in 1981—unless it acted thereby to interpret the Constitution, explicitly and
with substantive rationale, which it did not—has no bearing
on what the constitutional term has meant since 1924, or on
what its predecessor term Pfarrgemeinde has meant since 1847.
In 2009, and again in 2014, the commission applied the definition that had consistently been applied to that point (see Op.
14-2718, June 13–14, 2014; Op. 11-2618, Nov. 11–13, 2011; Op.
09-2545, Feb. 7–8, 2009; Op. 03-2327 and 02-2321, Jan. 20–21,
2003; Ag. 1748, May 3–4, 1985; Ag. 1734, Feb. 1, 1985); Ag.
1275A, B, June 9, 1978; Ag. 305, May 4–5, 1972; Ag. 181, Oct.
2019 Convention Workbook

1–2, 1970). It cited this definition from its previously explicit
statement in the bylaws. In doing so it did not amend the bylaws
or “resurrect” a dead bylaw, and certainly did not go beyond its
authority (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [c]). It simply applied the historically
demonstrable, settled interpretation of Const. Art. V.
Question 4: Does the call of a pastor of a dual-parish as an
associate pastor of a local larger congregation,
where the pastor of the larger congregation has no
call to and no responsibilities toward the dualparish, constitute a parish under Article V of the
Constitution?
Opinion: Presently, based on the standing treatment of parish,
if any pastor of a congregation serves any other congregation,
the totality of the congregations served is considered a parish.
Formerly—when Synod was capable of distinguishing the
one Pfarrer, the (head) pastor of a given congregation, from its
Hilfsprediger, assistant pastor(s), if any—this was not the case.
In the early period, a congregation had only one pastor
(Pfarrer), though it may have had Hilfsprediger, assistant(s),
in addition. Those congregation(s) under one Pfarrer were a
Pfarrgemeinde or congregation-or-parish. Perhaps independent
congregations could have shared Hilfsprediger, though this possibility is more theoretical than historically demonstrable. The
relation of congregations and pastors is now far more complicated. Today the category of associate pastors has evolved and
the once-constitutional distinction of assistant pastors (Hilfsprediger) as advisory only has, by the 2016 convention, been removed. More pastors are being shared among multiple congregations, whether by call or by uncalled but still regular service.
In this changing situation, over many decades, interpretation
has fallen along the lines that congregations with any serving
pastor in common constitute a parish.
The original intent of Pfarrgemeinde, which grouped congregations based on their sharing of a head pastor, relied on a
distinction not possible to draw using present bylaws: namely,
distinguishing “the (head) pastor” or Pfarrer from any “assistant pastors” or Hilfsprediger of a given congregation. Without
such a distinction, the only viable, practical application of the
constitutional principle is as previous commissions have repeatedly decided: “[T]he principle stands without exception: Two or
more congregations being served by the same pastor constitute
a parish with the right of representation by one lay delegate
and one pastoral delegate” (Op. 11-2618, Nov. 11–13, 2011).
The commission notes that if such distinctions could again be
drawn, it would be fully consistent with the meaning of the original constitutional language to define a congregation-or-parish
as (a) congregation(s) with a (head) pastor of its/their own, who
is not the (head) pastor of any other congregation(s). Multiple
congregation-or-parish representation units could share assisting pastors without thereby becoming together one congregation-or-parish. Without clarifying bylaw changes, however, such
a solution is impossible to implement today. Given such distinctions, however, it would be entirely consistent with the foundational, constitutional Pfarrgemeinde or congregation-or-parish
concept practiced from Synod’s inception.
An example from the early history of the Synod is the practice of forming a Gesammtgemeinde as Lutheranism expanded
in certain cities. Perhaps the most notable of these was the Gesammtgemeinde in St. Louis. In 1847, due to the growth of Trinity
Lutheran Church in St. Louis, where C. F. W. Walther was the