# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 16 1993_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
October 16, 1993
49. Opening Prayer : Roland Hopmann, at the request of the Chairman, opened the meeting with prayer,
asking God's blessing upon the deliberations of the Commission.
'50. Women Reconcilers (Ag, 1958) : Attention was called to the fact that minutes, no. 34, indicated that
this matter had been referred to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for reaction and
response.
51. Dual Parish-Different Districts (Ag. 1959) : It was noted that there was no reference to this matter
which had been dealt with in the March, 1993 meeting. At that time, the Commission had been asked a
number of questions including the following:
May a pastor be called to two different congregations in two different districts or does one congregation
have to change districts to share a pastor?
It is clear that the pastor would have only one vote since he must be a member of one district. May,
however, both congregations have a lay vote since they are in two different districts?
Do the constitutions of the two congregations need to be reworked, or would a "dual parish agreement"
suffice?
Must a "dual parish agreement" be notarized and would the "dual parish agreement" be a binding
agreement in the court of law?
May the two congregations officially call themselves a dual parish if they are in two different districts or
would there be a different term to describe this situation?
Prior to the meeting, the Secretary had prepared a response which was then ratified by the Commission. The
response prepared by the Secretary stated:
In response to the request for an opinion from the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding a dual
parish which involves congregations in two different districts of the Synod the Commission has
concluded that
1.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod which prevents a pastor from serving
two congregations which are in different districts. However, it would be appropriate in such a
circumstance for the district presidents involved formally to clarify the responsibility for
ecclesiastical supervision. As you have indicated, the pastor holds membership in a specific district
with that district president as his ecclesiastical supervisor. Nevertheless, one of the congregations
which he serves and which is a member of another district is responsible to the district president of
that other district (Article XIII 7; Bylaw 4.21 b; 4.73; 4.75). Consequently, it is absolutely vital,
because of the unique inter-relationship, that there be a formal understanding between the involved
district presidents regarding ecclesiastical supervision.