# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 17 18 2018_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[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 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-or-parish. 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.1
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” 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.

1

Noted also is the problem of invention of titles for pastoral roles which have no doctrinal, constitutional, or bylaw
basis, and thus no official standing. Some of these have caused considerable confusion.
CCM Minutes – August 17–18, 2018 – Page 127