# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 17 18 2018_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

location, which took the name of Immanuel. Initially Immanuel was not an independent congregation. 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 congregation was cared for by its own pastor even though
the congregations were related to one another in the Gessamtgemeinde.
The question thus arose: at conventions of the Synod and district, was this group of congregations to be
understood as one Pfarrgemeinde, entitled to only one pair of delegates? The situation was brought to the
1866 convention of the Synod for resolution, and the convention determined that each congregation with
its own independent pastor was to be recognized as a congregation entitled to be represented at conventions
by an ordained and a lay delegate. The sense of congregation or parish, taken together as equivalent to the
German Pfarrgemeinde, thus is more flexible than the often-applied, modern-day rule, as stated in the sinceremoved 1963 Bylaw 3.09: “If a pastor serves two or more congregations, these shall be regarded as one
parish and shall be entitled to only one lay vote.” While this bylaw was removed in 1981, without
replacement, this interpretation has been consistently applied since. In the early period, however,
congregations having pastors in common might still be separate Pfarrgemeinden, so long as each had a
distinct pastor to call its own (head) pastor.
Today as well, there are unique situations occurring which raise complex problems for representation and
for which the current bylaws do not provide a means of addressing. To give two examples:
•

Congregations A & B have formed a two-congregation parish and have been regularly served by a
pastor. After that pastor took a call, the situation of those two congregations was such that it would
be difficult to support a pastor. A larger Congregation C, which has its own pastor (Pastor 1), offers
to help solve their dilemma by having the new pastor of Congregations A & B (Pastor 2) assist at
Congregation C for one day a week and paying a portion of the salary. The pastor of Congregation
C has no responsibilities in Congregations A & B. Congregations A & B have their own pastor
(Pastor 2), and Congregation C has its own pastor (Pastor 1). Pastor 2 merely assists part-time at
Congregation C.

•

Congregations D & E both have their own pastor, and because of their size both are in need of some
additional pastoral help. However, neither has the size or resources to call an associate pastor on
their own. To resolve their situations, Congregations D & E decide, in addition to the pastor that
each one has, to call a pastor between them, who would split his time serving both congregations.
Here congregations D and E each have their own pastor, but a third pastor is shared, assisting at
both and “the (head) pastor” of neither.

In both of these examples, since, in each case one of the pastors is serving all of the congregations, present
interpretation makes all the congregations involved become a multi-congregation parish, entitled to one
pair of delegates at the district convention and for the President of the Synod.
The resolution adopted in 1866, however, would seem to indicate that in these examples, while these
congregations or parishes have some sort of a joint arrangement or relationship, each congregation-orparish (e.g., the parish comprised of A and B, and the congregations being C, D, and E) has its own
independent pastor, and each congregation-or-parish should be allowed to be represented by two delegates
at a district convention, one ordained and one lay. Bylaws as they currently exist, however, make no
provision for this possibility, and in addition pose significant problems in allowing this to take place. For
example, the current bylaws allow any ordained minister called by a congregation to be designated as the
pastoral delegate of that congregation. In the example of Congregations D & E the one individual who is
called by both congregations would be eligible to vote for either.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has proposed the following additions to the Bylaws to clarify
the definition of the meaning parish in Constitution Article V A and the bylaws dealing with district
CCM Minutes – August 17–18, 2018 – Page 129