LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 172

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

172

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

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
2026 Convention Workbook

identifying doctrinal errors or statements that are “inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity” (Bylaw 1.9.2
[f]) in the historical texts. “Positions 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.

Doctrinal Review Challenge of Exempted Items
(23-3014)
Minutes of July 27–August 3, 2023
On July 28, 2023, the Secretary of the Synod asked the commission
for an opinion on the following question, which the commission ad-