LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 13–14, 2014, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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).
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?

CCM Minutes – June 13–14, 2014 – Page 25