# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 11 13 2011_S35
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

At its May, 1972 meeting, the commission endorsed the counsel provided by the Secretary of the Synod
that only when a congregation that is being served by a pastor “on the side” is a “bonafide vacancy” is
that congregation entitled to its own lay delegate. Otherwise, if “it is in reality a dual parish,” it is not so
entitled (Ag. 305). In a June, 1978 opinion the commission further clarified “that it is not necessary to
actually participate in the calling of the pastor as long as the congregation is being served by a
neighboring pastor in order to be regarded as a dual parish” (Ag. 1275 A, B).
Such has been the commission’s consistent response to questions regarding the intention of the word
“parish,” leading up to 2003 Opinion 03-2327, which referenced a 1985 opinion of the commission (Ag.
1748):
This opinion took into consideration earlier versions of the Handbook that had provided a definition of
the term “parish,” e.g., “If a pastor serves two or more congregations, these shall be regarded as one
parish and shall be entitled to only one lay vote” (1963 Handbook, Bylaw 3.09). The term therefore
refers to a dual or multiple congregation arrangement served by the same pastor and is not synonymous
with “congregation.” As such, two or more congregations served by one pastor share the right of
representation by one lay delegate and one pastoral delegate to a district convention.

The August 30, 1990 opinion (Ag. 1898), introduced by the district president requesting this opinion, is
no exception to the consistent response of the commission to this question. It offered no exception
because the standard principle did not apply in the case being discussed. While the professor in question
was indeed serving as the pastor of the congregation in question under an agreement reached between him
and the congregation, Article V A regarding “parish” representation did not apply due to the fact that his
call to the seminary, which made him an advisory member of the Synod, disqualified him from service as
a voting delegate of the congregation.
In response to the first question articulated above, therefore, the 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. This principle must therefore be applied to each of the
circumstances described as follows.
Question 2: 1. A large congregation with a number of associate pastors which allows one of the associate
pastors to do ongoing pulpit supply for a small congregation that cannot afford a full-time
pastor. Does such action make the small congregation and the large congregation a dual
parish with one lay vote and one pastor vote?
Opinion: For the purpose of determining district convention franchise in the Synod, “a parish is defined
as a situation in which a pastor serves two or more congregations” in which “it is not necessary to actually
participate in the calling of the pastor” in order to be regarded as a dual parish (Ag. 1275 A,B). If the
congregations demonstrate the intent to continue in this manner in the foreseeable future, the small and
large congregations therefore constitute a dual parish, their lay vote shared in a manner that presumably is
fair and equitable for both congregations.
2. A small Spanish speaking congregation that is using the services of an associate pastor of
a larger congregation who speaks Spanish. There are no other Spanish speaking pastors
available to assist. Does the Spanish speaking congregation lose its own lay delegate at a
district convention?
Opinion: In response to the contention that forming a dual parish “deprives one of the congregations of
its constitutional right of suffrage,” the commission ruled in May, 1972 (Ag. 181) that “in view of the
229