# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 9 11 2013_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers and
then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding
expression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or recision [emphasis added].

The question before the commission discusses the first part of this process.
Question 1: “Given the new developments in electronic media, which allow people to share their ideas
publicly on the internet, what is the meaning of ‘fellowship of peers’ in Bylaw 1.8.2? With
everything that goes on in Synod, with Blogs, Facebook pages, email groups etc.
proliferating within Synod what constitutes ‘Fellowship of Peers?’ Is it confined to specific
groups? Is it limited to Pastor’s conferences, Districts and Synod in Convention, Official
LCMS gatherings, RSO gatherings, etc.?”
Opinion: Key to a group being considered a “fellowship of peers” in the context of dissent is the
competency of those making up the group to evaluate critically the position of the one expressing dissent,
and to identify areas of strength or weakness in that position. Such a fellowship of peers will assist the
one expressing dissent to sharpen his/her/its thinking and to aid him/her/it in objectively evaluating the
issue(s) involved. In the Synod, a member’s ecclesiastical supervisor can be helpful in identifying the
makeup of such a group. A member expressing dissent should consult with his/her/its ecclesiastical
supervisor to identify a trustworthy fellowship of peers with adequate understanding and competency to
evaluate and critique the issue in dissent.
Bylaw 1.8.2 refers not only to peers, but to a fellowship of peers. A fellowship of peers recognizes the
common bond held by those who hold membership in the Synod. This “brotherly” (and “sisterly”) bond is
emphasized in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, valuing the familial bond shared by those who
voluntarily join together “to support one another and to work together in carrying out their commonly
adopted objectives” (see Bylaw 1.1.1).
Examples of a “fellowship of peers” are included in the 1973 report of the CTCR, “Guiding Principles for
the Use of ‘A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles’ with Special Reference to the
Expression of Dissent.” A peer group of pastors may be their pastors conferences, of teachers may be
their teachers conferences, of professors may be their colleagues, and of staff members may be their
boards and other staff persons. In other words, each is to talk with those individuals who are competent to
evaluate critically the position of the one expressing dissent and identify the areas of strength or weakness
in that position.
While this 1973 report of the CTCR, “Guiding Principles for the Use of ‘A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles’ with Special Reference to the Expression of Dissent,” has not been adopted in a
convention resolution of the Synod, it gives valuable background and insight into what the Synod
understood to be the meaning of “fellowship of peers” in Bylaw 1.8.2.
Peer groups in the Synod are not limited to those listed above. For example, conferences of circuit
counselors have been gathered to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern, recognizing the value of
their sharing “as peers.” North American Mission Executives (NAME) is another example of a group of
peers, as are others with similar responsibilities such as in stewardship, development, youth, education,
and more.
The questioner asks whether anything has changed in regard to “fellowship of peers” because of the
relative ease through which discussion may occur through the World Wide Web, Facebook, blogs, and
Internet group discussion. Certainly these electronic means facilitate communication between people,
both within and without what the Synod has understood as the “fellowship of peers.” Where in years past
CCM Minutes – August 9-11, 2013 – Page 381