# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 30 1998_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Acting within the scope of 11.07, a, doctrinal reviewers are required to "make careful evaluation of the
doctrinal content of all items submitted This provision sets forth a context for 11.07, c, which states that
"The reviewer shall also be concerned that the items submitted to him do not contain statements that are
inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity."
In the event that there is a disagreement between an author or publisher and the doctrinal reviewer on
material that has not yet been published, the matter goes before the Commission on Doctrinal Review. Its
duties according to Bylaw 11. 11, b, 1, are to establish guidelines for the work of doctrinal reviewers and
to concern itself with problem areas in the procedures of doctrinal review. In a matter where doctrinal
review is challenged after publication, Bylaw 11. 15, c, stipulates that "the challenger is obliged to
provide specific references of how the published item is not in agreement with Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions."
Bylaw 11.07, b and d, establishes the standard for review or appeal, that the doctrinal content be in accord
with the Scriptures, the Confessions and the resolutions of the Synod. The jurisdiction given to a doctrinal
reviewer does not extend beyond matters of doctrine. The Commission therefore interprets Bylaw 11.07,
c, to mean that "inadequate, misleading, ambiguous or lacking in doctrinal clarity" apply to doctrine
alone.
The line of demarcation between the authority of doctrinal reviews and the Board for Communication
Services is clearly set forth in Chapter XII of the Bylaws. According to Bylaw 12.01, c, the Board for
Communication Services shall be responsible for the official periodicals (of the Synod) Bylaw 12.05
states that "matters relating to doctrine shall be approved under the prescribed procedure for doctrinal
review before publication." The doctrinal reviewer is therefore precluded from failing an article or
publication on grounds other than doctrine. To do so would exceed the authority given by the Bylaws and
would usurp powers expressly granted to the Board for Communication Services.
2, "Does this Bylaw (11.07) permit a reviewer to 'fail' an article - that is, to prohibit its publication -as
'inadequate' and 'misleading' if the article is deemed by him to be 'inadequate' and 'misleading' in
some sense other than a doctrinal sense?"
For the reasons stated in the Commission's response to question 1, a reviewer may only fail an article if it
is "inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity" and therefore not in doctrinal
conformity with the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions and the doctrinal resolutions of the Synod.
3. "What if an article that includes criticism of a certain committee's actions is, in the reviewer's opinion,
'inadequate' or 'misleading,' for example, in the way it explains the committee's decision to conduct its
business in a certain way? May he on that basis refuse to permit its publication?"
The Bylaws state that the regulation of the official periodicals of the Synod falls within the jurisdiction of
the Board for Communication Services. This Board has the responsibility and authority to regulate the
content of these publications in all matters that do not expressly fall within the purview of doctrinal
review. A reviewer may not reject an article or publication if he merely disagrees with its content on a
non-doctrinal basis.
5. Residence of Board Members (98-212 7)
A letter was received from a pastor requesting the Commission's opinion regarding the membership on the
Board of Directors of the Synod of two persons "from the same district." More specifically, "can a newly
elected Board of Directors member remain on the Board if they move to a district where an existing Board
of Director's member already resides? Is one member immediately disqualified from serving .... whether it's
the newly elected or the existing member?" References were also made to a prior case where a Board