LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 8–11, 2023, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

“[P]ositions deviating from the doctrinal resolutions of the Synod” shall be “clearly identified as such”
(Bylaw 1.9.2 [g]). It may be a more difficult path to follow, but the path cannot be avoided as the Bylaws
require such review. While the Commentary preface included the statement that the content had not been
doctrinally reviewed, its being a study document, it also included such statements, which may—given the
apparent intended audience of the work—satisfy any concerns about doctrinal statements included in the
historical text itself (which obviously cannot simply be adjusted away).
With respect to CPH specifically, it is a “board[], commission[], or other subordinate group[]” under Bylaw
1.9.1.1 (b) and is therefore able to produce study materials. But as with any other board, commission or
subordinate group, the study materials it can produce are those that relate to matters that fall within its
purview. CPH’s purpose is “to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Bylaw 3.6.3). It does this
“by developing, producing, marketing, and distributing” certain materials (ibid., emphasis added). Study
materials produced by CPH, with no other originating board, commission, or other subordinate group,
would be limited to study and exploration of development, production, marketing, and distribution. This
sphere of responsibility would be very unlikely to generate a study document in the sense contemplated
here. Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) requires that any of those materials CPH publishes that are of a religious or theological
nature must be “approved through the Synod’s prescribed procedure for doctrinal review before
publication.” (The interplay of Bylaws 3.6.3 [d] and 1.9.1.1 [b] will be discussed in the below opinion).
This restriction makes sense in that if CPH were to publish materials that were not doctrinally sound, it
would undermine its purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Question 2:

Assuming that CPH is such a subordinate group of the Synod, does Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) which
states “All materials of a religious or theological nature shall be approved through the
Synod’s prescribed procedure for doctrinal review before publication” prevent CPH from
publishing material pursuant to Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b)?

Opinion:
The commission understands this to be a question of the interplay of Bylaw 3.6.3(d) (which
requires doctrinal review before CPH can publish) and Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) (which, as discussed above, allows
for publishing in certain situations without going through doctrinal review). The commission finds that
Bylaw 3.6.3 (d) requires CPH to comply with the doctrinal review requirements of Bylaw section 1.9 with
respect to “all materials of a religious or theological nature.” Where CPH, within the “nexus” described in
Question 1, satisfies the requirement of doctrinal review by way of the mechanism described in Bylaw
1.9.1.1 (b), it has thereby satisfied the requirement of Bylaw 3.6.3 (d).
The commission notes, in closing, that bylaws dealing with doctrinal review and dissent, given changes in
the structure of the Synod and in the free exchange of information, may be due for comprehensive review
and revision.
182. Floor Committee Weekend Activities
The commission members attended the floor committee sessions and met periodically to review resolutions
under consideration and to prepare guidance consistent with its charge in Bylaw 3.9.2.2.2.
183. Adjournment and Future Meetings
The commission adjourned upon review of the last resolution submitted during Floor Committee Weekend.
It will next meet in person on Thursday, July 27, in conjunction with the 68th Regular Convention of the
Synod in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at which point it will continue its duty of supporting the convention
business (Bylaws 3.1.4.1, 3.9.2.2.1–2).
John W. Sias, Secretary

CCM Minutes – June 8–12, 2023 – Page 151