# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 16 1993_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The simplest approach would, of course, be for one of the congregations to request a change in
district membership.
1.

Because two districts would be involved in the circumstances described, because the congregation
cannot be deprived of its vote, and because the matters under consideration vary from district to
district (including also elections), each congregation would have a lay vote in the respective district in
which the congregation holds membership.

1.

The constitutions of the two congregations need not be altered. In effect, each congregation is
calling the pastor to serve it. A "dual parish" agreement is sufficient. However, it should be
remembered again that two districts are involved and that both district presidents should be aware of
and supportive of the agreement because of the factors indicated in paragraph a. The Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod do not specifically speak to this issue.

1.

While there would be no requirement that the "dual parish agreement" be notarized, it would
certainly not be improper. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod that speaks to
this issue. The Commission is not in a position to determine whether such an agreement would be
binding in a court of law.

1.

The term "dual parish" does not appear in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. It is merely a
term coined to describe the situation in which two congregations are served by one pastor. Within that
definition, there is no reason why the term could not be used in the circumstance described.

As noted above, in many respects the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent with regard to the
matters concerning which an opinion has been requested. Two principles in particular which are specified
in the Constitution and Bylaws, however, must be respected, namely, the congregation's right of selfgovernance and the responsibility of the Synod through its districts for ecclesiastical supervision. The first
of these can clearly be maintained in the proposed arrangement. Maintenance of the second, while
possible, could obviously be simplified if one of the congregations involved in the proposed arrangement
were to change its district membership.
52. Congregation Constitution—Community of Hope (Ag. 1950 1960,1966) : The Chairman of the Ohio
District Constitution Committee had forwarded a request to the Commission on Constitutional Matters for
an opinion with respect to the Constitution of Community of Hope, a congregation seeking membership in
the Synod. Because of the unusual nature of the proposed constitution, the committee was seeking guidance
on this matter. Some changes had already been made at the suggestion of the Constitution Committee, but it
was felt that additional changes might be necessary. The President of the Ohio District had also contacted
the Commission asking for its views on the proposed constitution. In response to the request which had
been made, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
At its meeting on October 16, 1993 the Commission on Constitutional Matters considered your request
for an opinion with respect to the Constitution of Community of Hope.
Before responding to your request, the Commission would ask you to remember that it only addresses
questions which are specifically presented. In keeping with this, it was noted that the Commission was
not asked nor did it undertake to resolve the question of whether a District Committee on Constitutional
Matters has the discretion to require certain provisions or statements which are not specifically required
by the synodical Constitution and Bylaws.

In view of the above, the Commission on Constitutional Matters declines to carry out a line-by-line
review of the Constitution of Community of Hope since this is the function of the District Committee. As