# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 17 18 2018_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Hilton Airport Hotel, St. Louis
August 17–18, 2018
160. Call to Order and Opening Devotion
The commission determined to forgo its scheduled June meeting due to less than expected business.
Commission Chairman Dr. George Gude called the commission’s meeting to order, with all members
present except for Neely Owen, attending to his family, and, on Saturday, Larry Peters, who had to depart
to attend to pastoral duties. Dr. Gude offered textual study devotions Friday and Saturday mornings, on
John 6:51–71 and Ephesians 5:21–33, respectively.
161. Questions regarding the definition of multi-congregation parish (17-2870)
A district president of the Synod submitted a series of questions regarding whether or not the call of a pastor
by both an existing dual parish and by a third congregation rendered the three congregations a parish (Const.
Art. V A). His questions were prefaced with the following rather extensive background:
Background
A long-standing dual-parish had gone vacant. A series of circumstances resulted in the lack of resources
for the dual-parish to support a pastor. Since there were no other congregations within reasonable distance
with which to form a triple-parish, a larger congregation in the area chose to assist by offering to call the
pastor of the dual-parish as an associate, at least until the congregations could manage on their own. This
arrangement was established solely out of the generosity of the larger parish for the sake of supporting the
proclamation of the Gospel in two small rural communities. A pastor was installed as the pastor of the dualparish and an associate of the larger congregation. The pastor of the larger congregation has no call to, and
no responsibilities toward, the dual-parish.
The Secretary of the Synod, following a previous CCM opinion, ruled that this arrangement constituted a
parish under Const. Art. V and that, therefore, these three congregations were [together] entitled to one
pastoral and one lay vote at the convention of the district. The questions herein set forth are intended to
challenge that ruling on the basis of two facts:
(1) The congregations in question do not fit the normal pattern of the construction of a parish by design
or intent.
(2) The current Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not contain a definition of the term parish
thereby making a textual interpretation impossible. The commission might then seek to follow
historical patterns. These, however, are not entirely consistent, since there is historical precedent in
Walther’s Gesammtgemeinde for congregations, in association, to be considered independent
congregations.
CCM Op. 09-2545, quoted below (in part, underlining added), seems to have formed the basis for the
decision of the Secretary of the Synod in this matter. In this decision, the commission seems to have relied
on text that had not existed in the Handbook for 46 years. If the commission is permitted to use a “ghost”
text that is not available to the members of the Synod, those members are at a distinct disadvantage by not
being allowed reasonable access to the law. The congregations in question, lacking a definition of the term
parish, can reasonably argue that they could find no ground in the bylaws for their voting rights to have
been limited by this arrangement.
Voting Rights of Congregations (09-2545)
In a January 18, 2009 e-mailed letter, a parish pastor requested an opinion with respect to the
representation of a four-congregation partnership (a multiple-congregation parish) at a district
convention.
CCM Minutes – August 17–18, 2018 – Page 122