LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 11–13, 2011, Page 34

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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.
83. 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 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).
228