Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 221

2026 Convention Workbook
186 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
terms of subject matter expertise and ministerial formation to that 
of a graduate of one of the other implementations; in the latter, the 
formation of a graduate of an “essentially revised” program might 
not be.
While the relative evaluation of curricula belongs to CUS and not 
to this commission, the commission observes that the language of 
“minor curricular changes” and “including substantially equivalent 
subject matter” seems consistent with the sort of “new implemen -
tation” of an existing program described in Bylaw 3.6.6.1 (b) and, 
therefore, within the authority of CUS BOD to authorize.
The commission notes, however, that the provided white paper 
indicates “all rostered, commissioned workers in the LCMS take 
core theology classes that include the study of Old Testament, New 
Testament, doctrine and confessions of the LCMS, methods in reli-
gious education, and the role of the church professional. A DFLM 
takes these classes as well.” However, as might be expected, the 
master’s level program descriptions provided do not include this 
coursework. The commission thus understands the master’s pro-
gram to be incomplete, as to certification, in itself, requiring the 
“core theology class” requirements to be satisfied through a prior 
undergraduate church work program or some other means. It has 
been clarified for the commission that, while the master’s degree 
is not inclusive of the theology requirements, a track for comple -
tion of said requirements would be provided and required for those 
seeking certification, either via classes at the respective Concordia 
or through CUEnet (whether by certification or colloquy). This was 
likened to the “modularity” of the education major and Lutheran 
Teacher Diploma pathway at a number of Concordia universities. 
Considered within this context, this nuance does not alter the com-
mission’s conclusion, stated above.
Presidential Appointment following Invalid Circuit 
Election (26-3074)
Minutes of February 6–7, 2026
The Secretary of the Synod posed a question as follows: 
Question: A 
circuit conducted timely elections for pastoral and 
lay delegate and alternates to the Synod convention, 
correct in all respects except that the alternate lay 
delegate was elected from the same congregation 
as, and subsequent to, the alternate pastoral dele -
gate. The alternate lay delegate was, therefore, not 
certified by the district secretary. After the bylaw 
certification deadline, the lay delegate was rendered 
unable to attend the convention. Does the defec -
tive election of an alternate lay delegate preserve 
the ability of the district president to appoint a re-
placement lay delegate for the circuit under Bylaw 
3.1.2.1 (m)? 
Background:
 Op. 10-2580, 
13-2675, and 19-2906 do not 
definitively answer this question. Op. 10-2580 notes that “Bylaw 
3.1.2.1 (j) allows appointment by a district president in some in-
stances of defective elections. However, in each of those prior in-
stances considered by the CCM where that right was recognized, 
an election was held in a timely manner, but was defective in some 
other respect.” Op. 10-2580 seems to refer to Ag. 1851 (Dec. 3, 
1998), in which the commission commended appointment of re-
placements by the district president in a situation where delegates 
and alternates had been elected “timely” but outside the forum and 
by a procedure other than that specified in the bylaws. At the same 
time, Op. 19-2906 speaks of “due election” and Op. 13-2675 states 
Family Life Ministry (DFLM) as a type of commissioned minister 
and authorized BHE/CUS, presumably under 2004 Bylaw 3.8.3.4 
(c), to “review and approve new programs” in this area under its 
broad assignment to “have overall responsibility to provide for the 
education of commissioned ministers” (2004 Bylaw 3.8.3.1). The 
resolution described the program thus:
The family life program is multi-disciplinary, emphasizing 
theology, sociology, law, economics, and scripturally sound 
psychology. The family life graduate will possess the theo-
logical, academic, and practical training needed for providing 
specialized services to families in a variety of situations and 
settings. Students preparing for the position of Director of 
Family Life Ministry will participate in a program of study 
that conforms to the requirements established by the Concor-
dia University System for admitting, monitoring, and placing 
church-vocations students. The requirements for the study of 
theology are the same as for Lutheran teacher and director of 
Christian education students. Family life ministry programs 
on Concordia University System campuses will maintain 
required academic standards so that graduates will also be 
eligible for professional licensure.
Today, CUS is charged:
•	 on the one hand, to “review and approve new implementa -
tions of and discontinuance, whether actual or constructive, 
of programs of study leading to professional church work 
in the interest of the institution(s) and the Synod” (Bylaw 
3.6.6.1 [b]), to maintain standards for such programs (By-
law 3.6.6.4 and its subparagraph [c]), and to conduct visi-
tation and possible disaffirmation of such programs (Bylaw 
3.6.6.4.1 and its subparagraph [d]), and
•	 on the other, to “receive, revise, and recommend to conven-
tions of the Synod for approval any proposals for creating, 
essentially revising, or renaming programs of study and cer-
tification for commissioned ministry” (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [g]).
The question before the commission is whether the authorization 
of DFLM programs as indicated falls under the former provision, 
thus requiring only CUS approval, or the latter, instead requiring 
approval of the convention. 
The CUS resolution does not create or rename a program of study 
and certification for commissioned ministry, so as to create or re-
name a new category of commissioned ministry, to be added to the 
list presented today in Bylaw 2.6.1.1. Such would clearly require 
action of the convention, pursuant to a recommendation from CUS 
as described in Bylaw 3.6.6.1 (g).
This leaves the question of whether the resolution amounts to “new 
implementation[s]” (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [b], delegated to CUS) or an 
essential revision (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [g], requiring convention action) 
of an existing program of study and certification for commissioned 
ministry/leading to professional church work (namely the DFLM 
program). The former, within the realm of CUS BOD to approve, 
would be an implementation by a new Concordia university or in 
an incidentally different outward form of the essence of an existing 
program among those listed in Bylaw 2.6.1.1. The latter, requiring 
convention approval, would be a revision of the “intrinsic, funda-
mental nature” or of “an indispensable element” (Collins Dictio -
nary) of an existing church work program to have a fundamentally 
different requirement with regard to some presently indispensable 
element. In the former case, a graduate’s formation by a “new 
implementation” would be readily recognized as “equivalent” in