# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S197
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Question:

In light of the foregoing, are publications of
Synod’s schools (e.g., seminary journals) subject
to appeal to the CDR under the process outlined
in Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2?
Opinion: Noting Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b], the Commission on Constitutional Matters notified the seminaries, colleges, and universities of the Synod and the Commission on Doctrinal Review of
the question and received a number of responses.
The history of doctrinal review is long and storied. From
its inception, concern for doctrinal integrity has been one of the
very reasons for Synod’s existence. While the objective of Synod
to conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3–6;
1 Cor 1:10) … and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy (Art. III 1) has been consistent, the means of fostering and reviewing this doctrine and
practice have changed. The role of the Synod President as the
one charged overall with the supervision of doctrine and practice of Synod has not changed (Const. Art. XI B).
In 1965 the Convention of Synod directed a study of the
then provisions of the Handbook and the practice of the Synod
regarding doctrinal review (then using the term censorship).
The 1963 Handbook reflected the long-standing practice (1924
Handbook, p. 94) that the President of the Synod was aided in
his duty of censorship (doctrinal review) of official publications
by the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis: “Censorship
of doctrinal contents of the official publications shall be the
responsibility of the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis” (1963 Bylaw 11.89). The study committee reported to the
following convention that the burden of doctrinal review was
too great to be placed only in Concordia Seminary and recommended a new process to include all publications of Synod and
its agencies: “The material subject to doctrinal review consists
of the official publications of the Synod and its official media
of mass communication, regardless of what synodical board,
agency, commission, or auxiliary organization originates same”
(1967 Workbook, p. 59). They recommended to the convention
the establishment of a Board for Doctrinal Review to provide
guidelines for the doctrinal reviewers, procedures for doctrinal review, and an appeals procedure in case of dispute. The
Synod adopted the recommendations of the special committee
in full. The 1971 Convention approved the policy and procedures for doctrinal review drawn up by the CCM (adding Bylaws 11.151–11.163 [as finally incorporated into the Handbook;
numbered 11.121–11.133 in the resolution], 1971 Proceedings,
pp. 124–125).
1971 Bylaw 11.153 (c) made several exceptions to the direct
responsibility of the Board for Doctrinal Review, including one
for the terminal schools of Synod: “Each of the Synod’s terminal schools is accountable to the Synod through its respective
president and Board of Control for the content of its professional journals and publications which are not the official publications of the Synod. The members of the editorial board of
such publications shall serve as its doctrinal reviewers.” However, the provision for appeal (1971 Bylaw 11.163) did not provide
an exemption for any group but broadly established a process
by which appeal may be made: An appeal may be initiated by
an author, the sponsoring group, or an executive staff member of
that group. (It is noted that specific procedures for the appeal of
doctrinal review status of items already published, which would

197

likely originate outside the sponsoring group, would be added
in 1983.)
In 1981 a sweeping review of the Constitution, Bylaws, and
structure of Synod made only minor changes to the Bylaw provisions dealing with doctrinal review. In particular, the Convention added clarification that the overall responsibility for doctrinal review remains that of the Synod President (1983 Bylaw
10.01 [c]): “The primary responsibility for doctrinal supervision
and review lies with the President of the Synod” (Article XI,
B, 1). In 1983, upon recommendation of the Commission on
Doctrinal Review, the Synod in Convention added separate
procedures for appeals dealing with items already published.
“A challenge to the doctrinal review certification of a published
item may be initiated by any member of the Synod” (1983 Bylaw
10.15).
In 2004 and 2007 further changes were made to the bylaws.
As adopted by the convention in 2007, the overall section was
prefaced by Bylaw 1.9.1: “Doctrinal review is the exercise of the
Synod’s responsibility to determine that every doctrinal statement made in its or any of its agencies’ or auxiliaries’ materials
is in accord with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.”
Bylaw 1.9.1.1 states: “The following materials are subject to
doctrinal review:
(a) All official periodicals and journals of the Synod,
as well as any material with doctrinal content issued
publicly by boards, commissions, or other subordinate groups of the Synod, except as stipulated in
these Bylaws, shall be subject to doctrinal review. [(b)
… (c) … ]
(d) Each of the Synod’s schools is accountable to the
Synod through its respective president and board of
regents for the content of its professional journals
and all of its published materials that are not the
official publications of the Synod (paragraph [a] of
Bylaw 3.8.5.2.3). The editorial boards of such publications shall serve as their own doctrinal reviewers.”
When it states, except as stipulated, the meaning is clear:
the direct responsibility for doctrinal review in these stipulations is carried out not through the Commission on Doctrinal
Review but through those specified—not that the publications
are exempt from doctrinal review. The procedures under Bylaw
1.9.2 apply to whomever the doctrinal reviewers are—whether
those reviewers appointed under Bylaw 1.9.2 (a) or those who
function as doctrinal reviewers according to other stipulations:
in the case of seminary publications, their editorial boards.
In the event of a problem that cannot be resolved between
an author and the [doctrinal] reviewer, whether one appointed
by the Synod President or those designated in the stipulations
(Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [c–f]), the Bylaw directs the problem to the Commission on Doctrinal Review “which shall follow the appeals
procedure and criteria stated in Bylaw 3.9.3.2.1” (Bylaw 1.9.2
[l]).
“The overall responsibility for doctrinal supervision and
review lies with the President of Synod” (1.9.2 [a]) and he exercises this responsibility for doctrinal review of all materials
and publications of Synod and its agencies or auxiliaries either
through those reviewers appointed under Bylaw 1.9.2 [a] or
through those stipulated separately in 1.9.1 [c–f]. If question or
challenge is made to material reviewed and published, the intent
2019 Convention Workbook