Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 92

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 pres-
ent 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 man-
agement of the Synod’s Handbook. It assists convention floor com-
mittees 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 Hand-
book-related assignments from conventions; and it responds to re-
quests 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 iden-
tified 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 attain-
able, 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 else-
where 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 ap-
peals of decisions of a doctrinal reviewer before an item is pub-
lished and to rule on a challenge to the doctrinal content of a publi-
cation by any of the Synod’s entities.
During the present triennium the commission received one ap-
peal 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 pres-
ent Christian doctrine. The required revision was made by the pub-
lishing entity.
Also, the commission dealt with two other matters:
•	 The commission received a question about vague or mis-
leading wording in an already published item. While vague 
or misleading wording is to be corrected in the doctrinal re-
view 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 re-
ceived. The publisher was contacted and agreed with the 
questioner that, due to a typological error, there was a mis-
statement 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 Syn-
od can challenge an already-published item. Specifically, language 
that is vague or misleading is to be rejected by a doctrinal review-
er (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 under-
stand 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