Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 207

2026 Convention Workbook
172 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
identifying doctrinal errors or statements that are “inadequate, mis-
leading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity” (Bylaw 1.9.2 
[f]) in the historical texts. “Positions deviating from the doctrinal 
resolutions of the Synod” shall be “clearly identified as such” (By-
law 1.9.2 [g]). It may be a more difficult path to follow, but the path 
cannot be avoided as the Bylaws require such review. While the 
Commentary preface included the statement that the content had 
not been doctrinally reviewed, its being a study document, it also 
included such statements, which may—given the apparent intended 
audience of the work—satisfy any concerns about doctrinal state -
ments included in the historical text itself (which obviously cannot 
simply be adjusted away). 
With respect to CPH specifically, it is a “board[], commission[], or 
other subordinate group[]” under Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) and is therefore 
able to produce study materials. But as with any other board, com-
mission or subordinate group, the study materials it can produce 
are those that relate to matters that fall within its purview. CPH’s 
purpose is “to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (By-
law 3.6.3). It does this “by developing, producing, marketing, and 
distributing” certain materials (ibid., emphasis added). Study ma-
terials produced by CPH, with no other originating board, commis-
sion, or other subordinate group, would be limited to study and ex-
ploration of development, production, marketing, and distribution. 
This sphere of responsibility would be very unlikely to generate a 
study document in the sense contemplated here. Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) 
requires that any of those materials CPH publishes that are of a 
religious or theological nature must be “approved through the Syn-
od’s prescribed procedure for doctrinal review before publication.” 
(The interplay of Bylaws 3.6.3 [d] and 1.9.1.1 [b] will be discussed 
in the below opinion.) This restriction makes sense in that if CPH 
were to publish materials that were not doctrinally sound, it would 
undermine its purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 
Question 2:
 Assuming that 
CPH is such a subordinate group of 
the Synod, does Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) which states “All 
materials of a religious or theological nature shall be 
approved through the Synod’s prescribed procedure 
for doctrinal review before publication” prevent 
CPH from publishing material pursuant to Bylaw 
1.9.1.1 (b)?
Opinion: 
 The commission 
understands this to be a question of the 
interplay of Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) (which requires doctrinal review be-
fore CPH can publish) and Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) (which, as discussed 
above, allows for publishing in certain situations without going 
through doctrinal review). The commission finds that Bylaw 3.6.3 
(d) requires CPH to comply with the doctrinal review requirements 
of Bylaw section 1.9 with respect to “all materials of a religious or 
theological nature.” Where CPH, within the “nexus” described in 
Question 1, satisfies the requirement of doctrinal review by way of 
the mechanism described in Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b), it has thereby satis-
fied the requirement of Bylaw 3.6.3 (d). 
The commission notes, in closing, that bylaws dealing with doctri-
nal review and dissent, given changes in the structure of the Synod 
and in the free exchange of information, may be due for compre -
hensive review and revision.
Doctrinal Review Challenge of Exempted Items 
(23-3014)
Minutes of July 27–August 3, 2023
On July 28, 2023, the Secretary of the Synod asked the commission 
for an opinion on the following question, which the commission ad-
recognized. When such material is to be issued publicly, it 
shall be subject to doctrinal review.”
It is clear from this language that study materials were meant to be 
used by a particular board, commission, or other subordinate group 
(which use could include dissemination to a sphere of competent 
discussion partners in a study process of limited scope); not pub-
licly. And if such materials were to be used by a particular board, 
commission, or other subordinate group, it naturally follows that 
such materials would be related to the charge of that board, com-
mission, or other subordinate group. A key aspect of this system is 
discernment. A particular board, commission, or other subordinate 
group and its “sphere” as described above is competent to review 
and evaluate critically those items which fall within its purview. 
This discernment is also a key aspect of the related concept of dis-
senting from doctrinal positions of the Synod, wherein objections 
are first raised “within the fellowship of peers (that is, with those 
who are competent to evaluate the issue critically)” (Bylaw 1.8.2) 
and then to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. It 
would be nonsensical for a group to produce study material unre-
lated to its charge but to be used only by that group. Instead, these 
materials serve essentially as “penultimate” documents intended to 
result in a clearer or more correct public presentation of doctrine or 
practice in subsequent documents or efforts. Given this context, it is 
not surprising that the bulk of the study documents historically have 
originated with the Commission on Theology and Church Relations 
(Bylaw 3.9.5), which has explicit charges in this regard (Bylaws 
1.6.2 [b][1–2], 1.8.2, 3.9.5, and 3.9.5.2–3.9.5.2.1).
In 2007, the language of Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) was changed by deleting 
the final sentence of the original language (as included above) and 
inserting the provisions related to the required notice that exists in 
the current version of the Bylaw. The commission finds that the 
2007 change did not fundamentally change the scope or purpose 
of “study documents and explanatory materials.” It changed the 
potential scope of distribution of such materials by removing the 
restriction on public issue of such items prior to doctrinal review. It 
did so while continuing to satisfy the concern that such documents 
be shared with discernment and not be understood as reliably teach-
ing the doctrine of the Synod by requiring them to feature promi-
nently the noted caution (Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [b]). 
Since CPH’s edition of Albrecht Peters’ Commentary on Luther’ s 
Small Catechism (2009–13; hereafter, Commentary) was cited as 
an example in the materials provided to the commission related to 
this question, the commission finds it necessary to briefly discuss 
historical materials with doctrinal content (that is, falling under By-
law 1.9.1.1 [a]; cf. Bylaw 3.6.3 [d]). Unlike materials that have not 
been published yet or materials of which the author is still living 
and able to make changes, these historical materials are not mallea-
ble. Yet, these texts may contain positions on doctrine that are not 
in alignment with Synod’s positions. The Bylaws do not provide 
an exception to doctrinal review for these materials, unless their 
distribution is contemplated strictly within the parameters of “study 
documents or exploratory materials” described above; their “histor-
ical” nature does not of itself render them such. 
The commission notes that the doctrinal review of these “historical 
materials” may require a more nuanced approach by the Commis-
sion on Doctrinal Review. One possibility for approval of such doc-
uments that are, on a whole, profitable for use, with discernment, in 
the Synod would be for the originating body to identify and include 
clearly in prefatory or other accompanying published material, to 
the satisfaction of the Commission on Doctrinal Review, statements