LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 311

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
gregation parish at meetings of the circuit forum to select a circuit
counselor.
In addressing question 2, it should be noted that while Bylaws
5.2.2 (c) and 5.3.2 make reference to voting and representatives of the
congregations at circuit forums, they do not offer specific parameters.
Rather, the question of who votes is based on Bylaw 3.1.2.1 (c), which
sets the parameters for voting at circuit forums.
Therefore, the same conclusions from question 1 also apply to
question 2.
(Adopted Nov. 11–13, 2011)

Congregation Representation at District Conventions
(11-2618)
In a letter dated October 14, 2011, a district president inquired
regarding exceptions to the standard definition of a “parish” as “two
or more congregations served by the same pastor” when representation to the district convention is being determined. In his letter he
called attention to an August 30, 1990 opinion of the commission (Ag.
1898 “Pastoral Voting Eligibility”) in which a seminary professor
was not granted voting privilege on behalf of a nearby congregation although he was serving the congregation on a regular basis.
The district president wrote: “Since the CCM declared that a called
pastor in one ministry (the seminary) could do Word and Sacrament
ministry in a congregation (Trinity, Worden, Illinois) without a call
to that congregation and declared the pastor was ‘not in the technical sense the pastor of Trinity, Worden, Illinois,’ could the CCM
perceive additional situations where a congregation could enter into
such an agreement?”
He then offered a series of “situations that might call for additional
exceptions” to the definition of a parish and asked, “Can an exception
be granted for any of the above or others that you perceive?” and,
“Could the current interpretation force large congregations to forbid
their pastors from serving small congregations which cannot afford
a full-time pastor because they do not want to be recognized by the
Synod as being a dual parish?”
The commission notes that the second question in the foregoing
paragraph calls for speculation that is beyond the responsibility of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters, which is to “interpret
the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2).
The commission will, however, provide a response to the first question in the foregoing paragraph regarding exceptions to the standard
definition of a “parish.” The commission will then also respond to
the questions associated with the series of “situations that might call
for additional exceptions” described in the district president’s letter.
Question 1: Could the commission perceive of additional situations
(other than that addressed in Ag. 1898) where a congregation could enter into such an agreement (one that
would not constitute a “parish” situation)?
Response: Article V A of the Constitution of the Synod states: “At
the meetings of the districts of the Synod, every congregation or
parish is entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay delegate.” This requirement has taken
on additional significance as a result of 2010 Res. 8-17 “To Elect
the Synod President” and new Bylaw 3.12.2.3, which assign to the
voting delegates to district conventions the responsibility to elect
the President of the Synod prior to the national conventions.
Questions regarding the definition of the word “parish” were
already submitted to the commission as early as 1970, when the
Handbook of the Synod provided its definition and significance: “If
a pastor serves two or more congregations, these shall be regarded
as one parish and shall be entitled to only one lay vote” (Bylaw 3.17,
1969 Handbook, p. 81). The commission therefore ruled: “[I]n view

311

of the language of the Constitution in Article V, A which speaks of
‘every congregation or parish,’ the bylaw which states that two or
more congregations being served by one pastor shall be regarded as
one parish entitled to only one set of delegates is not contrary to the
Constitution” (Ag. 181).
At its May, 1972 meeting, the commission endorsed the counsel
provided by the Secretary of the Synod that only when a congregation
that is being served by a pastor “on the side” is a “bonafide vacancy”
is that congregation entitled to its own lay delegate. Otherwise, if “it
is in reality a dual parish,” it is not so entitled (Ag. 305). In a June,
1978 opinion the commission further clarified “that it is not necessary to actually participate in the calling of the pastor as long as the
congregation is being served by a neighboring pastor in order to be
regarded as a dual parish” (Ag. 1275 A, B).
Such has been the commission’s consistent response to questions
regarding the intention of the word “parish,” leading up to 2003 Opinion 03-2327, which referenced a 1985 opinion of the commission
(Ag. 1748):
This opinion took into consideration earlier versions of the Handbook that had provided a definition of the term “parish,” e.g., “If a pastor
serves two or more congregations, these shall be regarded as one parish and shall be entitled to only one lay vote” (1963 Handbook, Bylaw
3.09). The term therefore refers to a dual or multiple congregation arrangement served by the same pastor and is not synonymous with “congregation.” As such, two or more congregations served by one pastor
share the right of representation by one lay delegate and one pastoral
delegate to a district convention.

The August 30, 1990 opinion (Ag. 1898), introduced by the district president requesting this opinion, is no exception to the consistent
response of the commission to this question. It offered no exception
because the standard principle did not apply in the case being discussed. While the professor in question was indeed serving as the
pastor of the congregation in question under an agreement reached
between him and the congregation, Article V A regarding “parish”
representation did not apply due to the fact that his call to the seminary, which made him an advisory member of the Synod, disqualified
him from service as a voting delegate of the congregation.
In response to the first question articulated above, therefore, the
principle stands without exception: Two or more congregations being
served by the same pastor constitute a parish with the right of representation by one lay delegate and one pastoral delegate. This principle
must therefore be applied to each of the circumstances described as
follows.
Question 2: 1. A large congregation with a number of associate
pastors which allows one of the associate pastors to do
ongoing pulpit supply for a small congregation that cannot afford a full-time pastor. Does such action make the
small congregation and the large congregation a dual
parish with one lay vote and one pastor vote?
Opinion: For the purpose of determining district convention franchise in the Synod, “a parish is defined as a situation in which a
pastor serves two or more congregations” in which “it is not necessary to actually participate in the calling of the pastor” in order to
be regarded as a dual parish (Ag. 1275 A,B). If the congregations
demonstrate the intent to continue in this manner in the foreseeable
future, the small and large congregations therefore constitute a dual
parish, their lay vote shared in a manner that presumably is fair and
equitable for both congregations.
2. A small Spanish speaking congregation that is using the services
of an associate pastor of a larger congregation who speaks Spanish.
There are no other Spanish speaking pastors available to assist. Does
the Spanish speaking congregation lose its own lay delegate at a
district convention?

2013 Convention Workbook