# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S201
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
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, and at the 1854
convention of the Synod the pastor of Immanuel, J. F. Buenger,
was listed as an advisory delegate. 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 was served by its own pastor. Later, a
fourth “district” was also added. The common bond holding the
congregations together was their affection for C. F. W. Walther
and their desire to maintain a connection with him. (About a
year after Walther’s death in 1887, the congregations involved
decided to dissolve the Gesammtgemeinde.)
To deal with this unique circumstance, the Synod resolved
at the 1866 convention that each congregation with a “separate
pastor” was to be recognized as a congregation entitled to be
represented at conventions by an ordained and a lay delegate:
A request of the President, as pastor of the
Lutheran congregation in St. Louis, was read,
wherein the Synod was asked either:
[1.] To clarify that in the Synod Constitution
all such congregations as have their own [einen eignen] Seelsorger are to be understood as
Pfarrge­meinden, even when the same are combined in other respects with other congregations
into a Gesammtgemeinde; or
[2.] To alter the Constitution to require that every such congregation is to be represented by its
Seelsorger and a delegate from its hearers.
The Synod by resolution gave the sought-after
clarification, that every congregation with an
“independent” [einem selbständigen] Seelsorger
is to be understood as a Pfarrgemeinde, and thus
to be entitled to be represented in the Synod by
its Seelsorger and a delegate. (1866 Proceedings,
p. 75)
There thus exists the possibility under the constitutional
concept of Pfarrgemeinde, a.k.a. congregation or parish that
“every congregation with its own independent pastor” would
constitute a congregation-or-parish (Pfarrgemeinde), to be represented by one pastor and one lay delegate. The qualifiers its
own and independent refer to a pastor or pastor(s) in the following situation to a congregation or parish: He is (they are) recognized as “the pastor(s)” (i.e., not merely assisting, or as equals
among or subordinate to others) who is (are) not recognized
as “the pastor(s)” by any other congregation(s) (i.e., if they are
also serving any other congregation, it is merely as assisting under the supervision of someone else who is “the pastor”). In
this sense, each such congregation or set of congregations having its/their own pastor(s) would constitute a congregation-orparish. As noted previously, such a definition would rely on a
distinction between “the pastor” and “assisting pastors” that is
not presently possible under existing bylaws.21
In the case prompting this question, suppose that the distinctions underlying the 1866 Gesammtgemeinde practice were
to be recovered. Congregation 1 could call Pastor A as “head”

201

pastor and Pastor B as assisting pastor. Congregations 2 and 3
could call Pastor B as “head” pastor. In this situation, Congregation 1 would have its own pastor in the sense delineated above
if Pastor B serves that congregation only as an assistant, under
Pastor A’s supervision. Pastor B, likewise, would be the pastor
of Congregations 2 and 3. Supposing all this to be the case,
Congregation 1 would be a parish, which may be represented by
Pastor A only, and Congregations 2 and 3 together would form
a parish, which may be represented by Pastor B only. If Pastor
B could serve as Congregation 1’s delegate, or is regarded in any
fashion as “the pastor” of Congregation 1 (even, to use one of
the invented terms, as associate with Pastor A, not strictly under
Pastor A’s supervision) then Congregations 1, 2, and 3 would,
in fact, remain one parish, even under the Gesammtgemeinde
practice.
Were these distinctions to be recovered today in the bylaws
of the Synod, two congregations having some sort of a joint
arrangement or relationship, but each of them having its own
separate pastor, would each be allowed to be represented by two
delegates at a district convention, one ordained and one lay. An
example might be that Congregation A is quite small and the
man who has been called as the pastor of Congregation A, with
the agreement of his congregation, assists the pastor of Congregation B, which is quite large, by each month making half
of the visitations to the homebound of Congregation B. Since
each pastor has his own parish for which he is responsible, the
one merely assisting at the other, each congregation would be
entitled to its two votes at the district convention, and each pastor would only be eligible to cast the vote for the congregation
of which he is the pastor.
Conclusion: In the opinion of the commission, it would be
appropriate for the convention to again take up the definition
of parish and to develop appropriate bylaws that would clarify
its application to present situations, while remaining within the
boundaries of original constitutional intent.
To facilitate the convention’s consideration of this question, the commission offers the following overture, by which the
convention may adopt the definition that “(a) congregation(s)
with a (head) pastor of its/their own, who is not the (head) pastor of any other congregation(s) constitutes a congregation-orparish, even though it might share other (assisting) pastors with
other congregations.” Unless the possibility of making such
distinctions is restored to the bylaws, the present practice will
persist.

Doctrinally Pure Agenda, Hymnbooks, and
Catechisms in Church and School (18-2873)
An ordained member of the Synod, referencing the fourth
membership condition of Synod’s Constitution (Const. Art. VI
4), “Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and
catechisms in church and school,” posed the following questions
of the commission:
Question 1: Are other hymnbooks and agenda currently
in print besides Lutheran Service Book (2006),
Lutheran Worship (1982), or The Lutheran Hymnal
(1941) that are doctrinally pure, and, if so, how
would they be identified as such? For instance: is
the ELCA’s current hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran
Worship, doctrinally pure and appropriate for
2019 Convention Workbook