Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 217

2026 Convention Workbook
182 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ments, or offenses arise among members of the body of Christ” 
(Bylaw 1.10.1), which reach members who have not intentionally 
entered into a Bylaw section 1.10 process. It is the commission’s 
presumption that it is primarily with regard to these generally ap-
plicable provisions that the question is put, as no specific process 
is mentioned as underway or incipient. Members of the Synod are 
expected to seek reconciliation of the erring: “The words of Jesus 
in Matthew 18:15–20 provide the basis for church discipline for the 
local congregation. The same passage also grants Christ’s guidance 
to all Christians in seeking to settle other disputes, many of which 
fall outside the purview of church discipline involving the congre-
gation. In either case, the steps of Matthew 18 should be applied 
lovingly in both formal and informal settings. …Conflict resolution 
in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring mem-
ber in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adver-
sarial system practiced in society” (Bylaw 1.10.1.2). The Synod’s 
expectation is that its members will seek to restore the erring, but 
do so gently and within the offices and procedures the Synod has 
set forth for this purpose and following the scriptural admonition it 
has noted in its bylaws. This expectation, too, applies to members, 
regardless of external factors such as one’s journalistic pursuits.
The responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution rel-
ative to Matthew 18 apply to members of the Synod, regardless 
of one’s vocation. In Op. 04-2401, the commission has noted that 
“there is no constitutional provision that allows any person, group, 
board, commission or other entity to assume the responsibility of 
ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given to the 
President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District President 
under article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitution-
al responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod. No 
one is to interfere in the work of another.”
The commission has further noted, in the same opinion, that “if 
and when a pastor or any individual or group does not assume the 
constitutional responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision in the 
Synod,” there is nothing to “prohibit any Christian from rebuking 
a Christian brother so long as biblical” (Matthew 18) “and confes-
sional” (Large Catechism, Eighth Commandment) “principles are 
followed.”
Elsewhere, in Op. 05-2422, the commission has said that “members 
of the Synod walk together according to the covenants that they 
have mutually agreed upon by such membership, as delineated in 
the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. One of those 
covenants is provided in Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), which details how mem-
bers of the Synod have agreed to respond, ‘even if the alleged viola-
tion of Article XIII of the Constitution is considered to be “public.” 
In such case Matthew 18:15 is still followed.’”
Also in Op. 05-2422, the commission reasoned that “if a false doc-
trine or practice is public, a pastor is not prevented (while observ-
ing principles of Christian love) from informing his own congre-
gation(s) regarding true doctrine or practice when there is danger 
that the flock will be harmed by the falsehood.” “However, he may 
not assume this responsibility for other congregations that are not 
under his care or for the general public.”
While the “responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution 
relative to Matthew 18” apply to Synod members, no matter their 
other vocations or avocations, how those responsibilities apply to 
particular communications or situations depends on the particulars 
of the given case.
adopt changes to invalidate constitutionally this long-standing and recent -
ly-incorporated activity.
8. Present objectives 2 and 9 appear to root in a common, very general 
objective of the pre-1917, German constitution (Chapter IV 3: “Common 
protection and extension of the church”). The latter objective 9 has been 
understood most often to relate to duties and rights of pastors and congre-
gations vis-à-vis one another and the Synod (1975 Res. 9-07; 1977 Res. 
5-01; 2001 Res. 2-03A; 2010 Res. 5-01A; “Opinion on Dissenting Groups 
and Activities,” CCM Minutes, Oct. 30–31, 1969 [ref. Op. 03-2328, Min-
utes, Apr. 29, 2003; Op. 05-2443, Oct. 16–18, 2005; Op. 11-2589, Sept. 
3–4, 2011]; CCM Ag. 1879; Minutes, Dec. 14, 1989; Ag. 1901, Aug. 30, 
1990; Ag. 2115 [with regard to RSOs], Aug. 24, 1998; Op. 02-2280, Oct. 2, 
2022; Op. 02-2309, Jan. 20–21, 2003; Op. 03-2338 [incl. A and C], Dec. 
13, 2003; Op. 09-2570, Jan. 23–24, 2010; Op. 10-2581, Sept. 7, 2010; Op. 
13-2669, May 16–17, 2013; Op. 22-2980, May 2, 2022; Standard Operating 
Procedures Manuals for dispute resolution and expulsion), once with refer-
ence to procedural rights within the Synod under worker benefit plans (1967 
Res. 4-46). It presumably also extends but does not seem explicitly to have 
been applied in interpretation to the Synod’ s efforts (e.g., Bylaw 1.2.1 [f][2] 
to “retain” on behalf of itself and its membership “all authority and auton-
omy allowed a church under the laws and Constitution of the United States 
and the State of Missouri.” Whether and to what extent the protection and 
rights describe have to do with congregational property or its enjoyment, 
other than in a free exercise sense, the commission does not here opine.
9. Although this activity is proposed by Concordia Plan Services, the 
constitutional basis for its core work of administering the Concordia Plans 
is clear (Const. Art. III 10) but, just as clearly, inapplicable to the instant 
question. The commission notes that work related to worker benefit plans 
was carried out before the 1979 addition of the relevant (10th) objective.
10. While Bylaws 3.7.1.1–2 do not provide for this function, neither do 
they exclude delegation of new functions to CPS or its subordinate agency 
by the Synod Board of Directors. Further, there is some analogy to the as-
signment of this function, even if not exact, in the “administration services” 
conceived under Bylaw 3.7.1.2 and the Board of Directors’ general authori-
ty to establish limits for CPS’ administration of plans on behalf of the Synod 
(Bylaw 3.7.1.4).
Member of the Synod as “Journalist” (24-3040)
Minutes of March 21–22, 2025
A district president of the Synod, by an email of Nov. 18, requested 
an opinion on the following:
Question:  Does a 
rostered minister of the Synod who regards 
him/herself a journalist relinquish the responsibili -
ties outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution relative 
to Matthew 18?
Opinion:  That the “rostered minister” (individual 
member of the 
Synod) “regards him/herself as a journalist” has no bearing on the 
member’s responsibilities under the Constitution and Bylaws of the 
Synod.
The Bylaws of the Synod mention duties of members relative to 
Matthew 18 in Bylaws 1.10.1–1.10.1.6, in other passages dealing 
with disputes among Synod members and entities, and in Bylaw 
sections 2.14–17, dealing with suspension and expulsion from the 
Synod. Certain of the provisions apply to those who have entered 
(perhaps under obligation) into specific processes (cf. Op. 04-
2401). Clearly, a member invoking, for example, Bylaw section 
2.14 to seek suspension and expulsion of another member must 
follow the procedures there identified, including those involving 
Matthew 18, regardless of external factors such as one’s journalistic 
pursuits.
The general preface to Bylaw section 1.10, comprising Bylaws 
1.10.1–1.10.1.6, describes the expectations the congregations have 
adopted for the Synod’s members “when[ever] disputes, disagree -