Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 206

2026 Convention Workbook
171
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
material” produced by “boards, commissions, or other subordinate 
groups of the Synod.” The commission understands this question to 
be a question of the scope of this bylaw generally, and also specif-
ically to CPH. In order to answer this question, there are two items 
which need to be addressed. First, whether CPH is a “board[], com-
mission[], or other subordinate group[] of the Synod,” and, second, 
what is the scope of “study documents and exploratory material.” 
With respect to the first inquiry, CPH is included within the defi-
nition of an “agency” and specifically within that of a “synodwide 
corporate entity” under Bylaws 1.2.1 (a) and (w), either of which 
would fall under the definition of a “subordinate group” of the Syn-
od. The board of directors of CPH is, moreover, also a board of the 
Synod (Bylaw 3.2.2), and the board determines, “unless otherwise 
instructed by the Synod,” “what is to be published by the corpora-
tion” (Bylaw 3.6.3 [c]). CPH does, therefore, fall within this broad 
category, most naturally by its board being one “of the Synod.”
With respect to the second inquiry, the category of “study docu-
ments and exploratory material” (Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [b]) is not with-
out limitation. Since this term is not defined within the Bylaws, 
we must look to the natural meaning of the term and the context in 
which it is used. The most natural import of this term is that it is 
intended for a limited purpose. Indeed, the notice that is required 
under Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) for such materials includes that the materi-
al “is being released for study and discussion purposes.” 
Could any board, commission, or other subordinate group produce 
material for study on any topic? Could, for instance, the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters produce study materials on exe-
getical or doctrinal topics? By no means. There must be a nexus 
between the Synod’s charge of the board, commission, or other 
subordinate group and the study materials it is producing. In the 
previous example, the Commission on Constitutional Matters is not 
charged under the Constitution and Bylaws with matters of exege -
sis or doctrine; therefore, it would not be appropriate for the com-
mission to be producing such study materials outside of its purview. 
Any such materials would not aid the commission in the carrying 
out of its duties; instead, the production and publication of such 
would be more of a usurpation of responsibilities assigned to others 
under the Constitution and Bylaws. The commission finds that the 
scope of “study documents and exploratory material” conceived of 
as being produced, possibly without doctrinal review, by a given 
“board[], commission[], or other subordinate group[] of the Syn-
od,” is limited by the specific charge given to the particular entity 
in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Materials that would 
not be in keeping with the charge of a particular “board[], commis-
sion[], or other subordinate group[] of the Synod” are not hereby 
authorized to be produced and published by that group. (Of course, 
where CPH is not itself generating a work but “supply[ing] pub-
lishing and distribution services for the agencies of the Synod as 
required,” Bylaw 3.6.3 [a], the applicable limitation on the scope of 
“study documents and explanatory material” is determined by the 
charge of the entity generating the document. The generating entity 
also bears the burden of satisfying the applicable requirements of 
doctrinal review.)
This understanding of Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) comports with the history 
of that bylaw and historical practice. As originally enacted in 1971, 
the provision that has become Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) read:
“The right to produce study documents and exploratory ma-
terial plainly designated as such and published by boards, 
commissions, or other subordinate groups of the Synod is 
responses to charges. This advisor is to be appoint -
ed by the district president” (7 g, p. 275). Assuming 
that the CCM reviews and approves this manual, 
how does this procedure constitute due process, 
fairness, and impartiality (especially if the district 
president himself has placed the individual member 
of Synod on restrictive status or suspended status)?
Opinion: 
 The section 
of the Circuit Visitors’ Manual quoted in the 
question is a portion of a larger section of that same manual that 
addresses the role of the district president when there is a conflict 
between a congregation and its pastor that has degenerated to the 
point where the congregation is considering terminating the pas-
tor’s divine call. As described in Art. III 9 of the LCMS Consti-
tution, the district president is responsible for the well-being both 
of the congregation and the pastor and to help both through these 
difficult times. 
In carrying out this responsibility for both, the document included 
in the Circuit Visitors’ Manual encourages the district president to 
appoint a pastoral advisor for the pastor as well as to consider ap-
pointing an advisor for the congregation. The appointment of an 
advisor in these instances is not addressed in the Bylaws. 
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not require the pastor 
or congregation to accept the advisor appointed by the district or 
prohibit their seeking advice from other sources. It is nonetheless 
conceivable and consistent with a district president’s office that he 
might advise against having a certain individual serve as an advi-
sor out of concern that it would not prove helpful in resolving the 
matter at hand.
Question 7: 
 In the 
LCMS adjudication process, do the same 
rights and privileges afforded to ordained ministers 
of religion in the LCMS Bylaws, SOPM, and other 
documents apply also to commissioned ministers of 
religion? If not, how does this ensure due process, 
fairness, and impartiality?
Opinion: 
 The processes 
described in the Bylaws and Standard Op-
erating Procedures Manuals apply to all members of the Synod.
Question 8: May a 
district president prevent an individual mem-
ber of Synod from serving as an advisor to another 
individual member of Synod in the procedures of a 
congregation when potential removal of the called 
worker from office is at stake? If yes, how does this 
ensure due process, fairness, and impartiality?
Opinion:
 See answer to Question 6.
Scope of Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) concerning Concordia 
Publishing House (23-3010)
Minutes of June 8–11, 2023
At the request of the Board of Directors of Concordia Publishing 
House (CPH), clarification was sought on the relationship between 
Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) and Bylaw 3.6.3 (d).
Question 1:
 Is CPH 
considered a “board[], commission[], or 
other subordinate group[] of the Synod” pursuant to 
Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) which may produce study docu-
ments and exploratory material, which if properly 
marked, may be published without first being sub-
mitted to the doctrinal review process?
Opinion: 
 Bylaw 1.9.1.1 
(b) provides an exception to the normal 
doctrinal review process for “study documents and exploratory