# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 8 11 2023_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

required,” Bylaw 3.6.3 [a], the applicable limitation on the scope of “study documents and explanatory
material” is determined by the charge of the entity generating the document. The generating entity also
bears the burden of satisfying the applicable requirements of doctrinal review.)
This understanding of Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) comports with the history of that bylaw and historical practice. As
originally enacted in 1971, the provision that has become Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) read:
“The right to produce study documents and exploratory material plainly designated as such
and published by boards, commissions, or other subordinate groups of the Synod is
recognized. When such material is to be issued publicly, it shall be subject to doctrinal
review.”
It is clear from this language that study materials were meant to be used by a particular board, commission,
or other subordinate group (which use could include dissemination to a sphere of competent discussion
partners in a study process of limited scope); not publicly. And if such materials were to be used by a
particular board, commission, or other subordinate group, it naturally follows that such materials would be
related to the charge of that board, commission, or other subordinate group. A key aspect of this system is
discernment. A particular board, commission, or other subordinate group and its “sphere” as described
above is competent to review and evaluate critically those items which fall within its purview. This
discernment is also a key aspect of the related concept of dissenting from doctrinal positions of the Synod,
wherein objections are first raised “within the fellowship of peers (that is, with those who are competent to
evaluate the issue critically)” (Bylaw 1.8.2) and then to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
It would be nonsensical for a group to produce study material unrelated to its charge but to be used only by
that group. Instead, these materials serve essentially as “penultimate” documents intended to result in a
clearer or more correct public presentation of doctrine or practice in subsequent documents or efforts. Given
this context, it is not surprising that the bulk of the study documents historically have originated with the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (Bylaw 3.9.5), which has explicit charges in this regard
(Bylaws 1.6.2 [b][1–2], 1.8.2, 3.9.5, and 3.9.5.2–3.9.5.2.1).
In 2007, the language of Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) was changed by deleting the final sentence of the original
language (as included above) and inserting the provisions related to the required notice that exists in the
current version of the Bylaw. The commission finds that the 2007 change did not fundamentally change the
scope or purpose of “study documents and explanatory materials.” It changed the potential scope of
distribution of such materials by removing the restriction on public issue of such items prior to doctrinal
review. It did so while continuing to satisfy the concern that such documents be shared with discernment
and not be understood as reliably teaching the doctrine of the Synod by requiring them to feature
prominently the noted caution (Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [b]).
Since CPH’s edition of Albrecht Peters’ Commentary on Luther’s Small Catechism (2009–13; hereafter,
Commentary) was cited as an example in the materials provided to the commission related to this question,
the commission finds it necessary to briefly discuss historical materials with doctrinal content (that is,
falling under Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [a]; cf. Bylaw 3.6.3 [d]). Unlike materials that have not been published yet or
materials of which the author is still living and able to make changes, these historical materials are not
malleable. Yet, these texts may contain positions on doctrine that are not in alignment with Synod’s
positions. The Bylaws do not provide an exception to doctrinal review for these materials, unless their
distribution is contemplated strictly within the parameters of “study documents or exploratory materials”
described above; their “historical” nature does not of itself render them such.
The commission notes that the doctrinal review of these “historical materials” may require a more nuanced
approach by the Commission on Doctrinal Review. One possibility for approval of such documents that
are, on a whole, profitable for use, with discernment, in the Synod would be for the originating body to
identify and include clearly in prefatory or other accompanying published material, to the satisfaction of
the Commission on Doctrinal Review, statements identifying doctrinal errors or statements that are
“inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity” (Bylaw 1.9.2 [f]) in the historical texts.
CCM Minutes – June 8–12, 2023 – Page 150