LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 2–3, 2018, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

a. All provisions of these Articles of Incorporation and associated Bylaws are subject to the
provisions of the Constitution, the Bylaws, and the resolutions of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod in convention.In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the
organizational documents of this corporation and the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution,
or Bylaws of the Synod, as may hereafter be amended from time to time, the Articles,
Constitution, or Bylaws of the Synod shall control and govern.
b. This provision may not be altered or deleted without the approval of the Synod in convention
or the Board of Directors of the Synod.
c. Neither The Lutheran Church―Missouri Synod nor The Lutheran Church―Missouri Synod
Incorporated is responsible for the debts or other obligation of this corporation nor do they
represent or endorse the fiscal solvency of this corporation.
Article X Amendments
Amendments to these Articles of Incorporation may be made at any time at a regularly called
meeting of this corporation by a majority of the voting delegates present at such meeting, provided such
amendments are not inconsistent with the Constitution or the laws of the United States or the State of
(insert state where articles are filed) or the Constitution or Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod, and with prior approval of the Commission on Constitutional Matters of the Synod.
117. Appeal of the Doctrinal Review Certification of a Seminary Journal Article (17-2869)
The Commission on Doctrinal Review (CDR) has received, under Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2, an appeal to the
doctrinal review certification of an item published in a seminary theological journal. A member of the
Synod involved in the doctrinal review process requested an opinion on the following question:
Background: Bylaw 1.9.1 notes that “Doctrinal review is the exercise of the Synod’s responsibility to
determine that every doctrinal statement 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(d) notes that “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 . . . The editorial boards of such publications shall serve
as their own doctrinal reviewers.”
Bylaw 3.9.3 notes that “The Commission on Doctrinal Review assists the President of the Synod in the
exercise of his responsibility that all doctrinal content in its or any of its agencies’ materials be in accord
with the Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.”
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). The1963 Handbook reflected the
longstanding practice (1924 Handbook, p. 94) that the President of the Synod was aided in his duty of
CCM Minutes – February 2, 2018 – Page 92