Official Workbook PDF page source text

2026 Convention Workbook 57

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

are appointed. Synod has the institutions of the Concordia Univer - sity System and two seminaries that could help in producing such a module. This training module could include:

• a review of the bylaws concerning doctrinal review and the duties of a reviewer;

• examples of documents to be reviewed with items that need to be corrected either because they contain false doctrine or because of vague or misleading statements;

• an introduction to the appeal process when an author chal - lenges the decision of a reviewer; and • an introduction to the bylaws governing the process followed by the Commission on Doctrinal Review when an item is challenged after publication.

Andrew E. Steinmann, Chairman

R11

Commission on Handbook The Commission on Handbook (Bylaw section 3.9.4) has eight members, five voting and three advisory (nonvoting). Of the present voting members, three are on the Synod’s clergy roster and two are lay attorneys. The current nonvoting members are the Synod’s Secretary, its Chief Administrative Officer, and the chairman of its Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM). These members’ names are found in the Workbook Directory.

The commission provides for ongoing maintenance and management of the Synod’s Handbook. It assists convention floor committees in their work relative to Handbook contents; it revises the Handbook in consultation with the CCM immediately following Synod conventions to bring it into line with convention actions (as it did after the 2023 convention); it maintains a file of Handbooks through the years for reference and comparison; it carries out Handbook-related assignments from conventions; and it responds to requests from agencies of the Synod to propose measures to address Handbook-related issues arising between national conventions.

Since the 2023 Synod convention, the commission has made minor, non-substantive changes to the Handbook. (These are identified in the Handbook—Update Edition, available on the Synod’s website.) It changed the address of the Synod’s registered agent in the Articles of Incorporation. In addition, it supplied a missing word in a bylaw; made minor spelling and grammatical corrections;

made changes to harmonize language across the Handbook or to correct errors in numbering or cross-referencing; made changes to prevent misunderstandings where proper understandings are attainable, sometimes with the help of the CCM; and rearranged bylaws for improved understanding (especially in Bylaw sections 2.2–8 and subsection 3.3.4).

The commission has also formulated changes to recommend to the Synod in the following areas of the Bylaws (see overtures elsewhere in the Workbook): doctrinal review bylaws; specific ministry pastor supervision terminology; conflict of interest bylaws; the call of a special district convention; bylaws regulating committees in

Bylaw section 1.5; a mechanism for addressing incapacity on the

part of the Synod’s Secretary; ordering of the provisions in Bylaw 3.10.6.1 (university board of regents’ duties); electronic district convention registration; Synod convention certification/registration nomenclature; and university faculty overture submission.

R10

Commission on Doctrinal Review A. Actions During the Present Triennium The main responsibilities of the commission are to rule on appeals of decisions of a doctrinal reviewer before an item is published and to rule on a challenge to the doctrinal content of a publication by any of the Synod’s entities.

During the present triennium the commission received one appeal of a doctrinal reviewer’s decision. The commission denied the appeal and ruled in favor of the decision of the original doctrinal reviewer.

Also, the commission received one challenge to a published item and ruled that the item needed to be revised to correctly present Christian doctrine. The required revision was made by the publishing entity.

Also, the commission dealt with two other matters:

• The commission received a question about vague or misleading wording in an already published item. While vague or misleading wording is to be corrected in the doctrinal review process before publication, bylaws do not allow this to be the basis for a challenge after publication, so no action was taken.

• The commission received a question about the doctrinal statement in a publication, but no formal appeal was received. The publisher was contacted and agreed with the questioner that, due to a typological error, there was a misstatement that needed to be corrected. The publisher agreed to make the needed change, and the questioner agreed that no formal appeal needed to be filed in this case.

B. Bylaw Revision to Consider The commission is concerned that there is a difference between the reasons a doctrinal reviewer can reject a submitted item or ask for a revision of an item and the reasons that a member of the Synod can challenge an already-published item. Specifically, language that is vague or misleading is to be rejected by a doctrinal reviewer (Bylaw 1.9.2 [f]), but such language cannot be challenged once an item is published (Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2 [a]). If vague or misleading language is not desirable before publication, it is difficult to understand why it should be allowed to stand in an item that has been published. On the other hand, opening challenges to a publication on the basis of vague or misleading language may prompt many challenges and overwhelm the commission’s capacity to deal with them. This situation ought to be examined as to whether a bylaw revision is necessary or desirable.

C. Need for Training for Doctrinal Reviewers to Provide More Uniformity in Review Procedures and Doctrinal Analysis of Items Submitted for Review While doctrinal reviewers are conscientious and take their responsibilities seriously, there is little guidance offered them in performing their duties other than informing them of the bylaws that are to guide their work. This inevitably leads to a certain lack of uniformity in decisions. While total uniformity can never be achieved, the process might be improved by developing an online training module for reviewers that they should complete when they