LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 2–3, 2018, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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, p. 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 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)
CCM Minutes – February 2, 2018 – Page 93