Workbook page: 183
PDF page: 218
Section: No public section attached
Source status: source checked / public
LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 218
2026 Convention Workbook 183 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS comply with obligations imposed on the seminaries by applicable PFC bylaws. Bylaws 3.10.4.1–2 are limited to “new routes to ordination.” As the question does not involve “new routes to ordination,” Bylaws 3.10.4.1–2 are not applicable. (Nonetheless, the commission notes that the PFC could raise an objection to a modification of an existing route so extensive that it could be construed as effectively “new,” in which case these provisions might be found to be applicable.) This leads to Bylaw 3.10.4.3 to determine if said bylaw applies. Bylaw 3.10.4.3 states: “The committee shall review, assess, coor - dinate, support and make suggestions for improvement of all ex- isting noncolloquy routes leading to ordination in the Synod, in- cluding seminary and pre-seminary education programs.” Because the question refers to “seminary” and “existing noncolloquy routes leading to ordination,” Bylaw 3.10.4.3 is applicable; the question remains to what degree Bylaw 3.10.4.3 is applicable to the question at hand. The question before us refers to consent and authorization. For consent and authorization to be a duty and responsibility of the PFC and a requirement to be satisfied by a seminary board of regents such a requirement would need to be laid out either explicitly or implicitly as a prerequisite to fulfilling or complying with either the Synod’s Constitution or Bylaws. Nothing in Bylaw 3.10.4.3 rises to that standard. Having answered that, as to the question asked, the seminary would not need to receive consent and authorization from the PFC, it should be noted that the change or changes referred to do need to be submitted to the PFC in order for the PFC to perform its duty to “review, assess, coordinate, support and make suggestions for improvement to” the seminary’s proposed plan. Question 2: If a Concordia University System institution board of regents wishes to modify the academic, admis- sions, or financial parameters, or the means or place of instruction, for any existing pre-seminary edu- cation program of such institution, and such action would otherwise comply with any applicable Syn- od Bylaw, Constitution, or resolution requirements or restrictions on the authority of such board (e.g., Bylaw 3.6.6.1), do the provisions of Bylaws 3.10.4– 3.10.4.7 require such board to obtain the authoriza - tion or consent of the PFC before the board takes such action? Opinion: Bylaw 3.10.4.3 renders pre-seminary education programs within the scope of the PFC’s review, assessment, coordination, support, and suggestion of improvements. This work of the PFC is to be accommodated by Synod universities offering pre-seminary programs, which, like the seminaries, are not required to obtain PFC consent or authorization for such modifications. Lutheran Church Extension Fund Real Estate Solutions (24-3042) Minutes of April 7, 2025 By an email of Dec. 2, the President and CEO of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund (LCEF) forwarded a request for opinion on a series of questions: Background: LCEF is considering being involved in some level of real estate development work in concert with property owned by one or more LCMS-related entities that would qualify as The commission thanks the district president for the question, and if further insight is sought, would encourage him to consult the Commission on Theology and Church Relations document “Public Rebuke of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Cate - chism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment” (May 2006). Pastoral Formation Committee and Existing Routes (24-3039) Minutes of March 21–22, 2025 A congregation of the Synod, by an email of Nov. 11, requested an opinion on the following questions. Consistent with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), written input was solicited from the boards of regents of sem- inaries and universities of the Synod, as well as from the members of the Pastoral Formation Committee. Background: The Pastoral Formation Committee (PFC) was cre- ated by 2016 Resolution 6-01 to foster collaboration between the seminaries, following the report of the 2013 Res. 5-14A Task Force, which “recognized ‘the need to provide for greater coordination and collaboration between our two seminaries’” and “recommend- ed ‘that there be an entity ensuring that the seminaries do coordi- nate and collaborate with respect to these various programs’” (2016 R64, Workbook, p. 279). The Handbook provisions governing the PFC appear in Bylaws 3.10.4–3.10.4.7. In addition to fostering collaboration, the PFC is assigned one specific power: it “shall” recommend any new routes leading to ordination for approval by resolution of the Synod (By- law 3.10.4.1). The PFC also is directed to “review, assess, coordinate, support and make suggestions for improvement of all existing noncolloquy routes leading to ordination in the Synod, including seminary and pre-seminary education programs” (Bylaw 3.10.4.3). Other PFC responsibilities are outlined in Bylaws 3.10.4 and 3.10.4.4–5. The 2023 Synod convention resolved “That the seminaries, in con- sultation with the Pastoral Formation Committee, retain responsi- bility for the academic, admissions, and financial parameters for each approved non-residential route to ordination in the Synod” (2023 Resolution 6-03A). The Bylaws governing the seminary board of regents are found at 3.10.5–3.10.5.5. Particularly relevant to this opinion is Bylaw 3.10.5: “Each seminary of the Synod, with its president and faculty, shall be governed by a board of regents, subject to general policies set by the Synod.” Question 1: If a seminary board of regents wishes to modify the academic, admissions, or financial parameters, or the means or place of instruction, for any existing approved non-residential, noncolloquy route to or - dination in the Synod of such seminary, and such action would otherwise comply with any applicable Synod Bylaw, Constitution, or resolution require - ments or restrictions on the authority of such board (e.g., the third resolved in 2023 Res. 6-03A), do the provisions of Bylaws 3.10.4–3.10.4.7 require such board to obtain the authorization or consent of the PFC before the board takes such action? Opinion: As further background specific to this question, the By- laws concerning the PFC need to be read in conjunction with the Bylaws governing seminaries as “general policies set by the Syn- od” (Bylaw 3.10.5). As such, a seminary board of regents must