Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 173
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 173

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
dressed while the Secretary was attending to convention business:
Question:

Noting Op. 17-2869, does Bylaw 1.9.1 (and Bylaw 3.9.3) permit material exempted from original
doctrinal review under Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (g) or (b) to
have its doctrinal review certification appealed, following publication, under the procedure of Bylaw
3.9.3.2.2?

Opinion: Op. 17-2869 does not have as its subject matter the exceptions noted in Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) or (g), but does put forth the general position that all matters can have their doctrinal statements reviewed: “The primary responsibility for doctrinal supervision and
review lies with the President of the Synod” (1.9.2 [a]) and he exercises this responsibility for doctrinal review of all materials and
publications of Synod and its agencies or auxiliaries either through
those reviewers appointed under Bylaw 1.9.2 (a) or through those
stipulated separately in 1.9.1.1 (c–f).
The exceptions noted in Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) or (g) are not subject to
doctrinal review and are therefore not doctrinally certified. The first
requirement of Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2 is that the publication challenged
be doctrinally certified. Without the publication being first doctrinally certified, the challenge procedure outlined in Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2
is not available.
Therefore, any questions concerning the doctrinal content of those
matters under Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b) and (g) would normally be referred
to the President of the Synod.

Proposed Amendments to Convention Resolutions
(23-3012, cont.)
Minutes of July 27–August 3, 2023
The commission reviewed several proposed amendments to resolutions published in the First Edition of Today’s Business, upon
request either of their submitters or of floor committees to which
they had been recommended.
(H) Proposed Substitute for Res. 7-03, “To Work Toward Resolution with Concordia University Texas”
In its review of Substitute Resolution 7-03 (2023 Today’s Business,
3:395) the Commission on Constitutional Matters notes that while
agencies and corporate Synod are eligible for the dispute resolution process, such a dispute cannot involve the interpretation and
of the Constitution and Bylaws, since the Synod in convention has
assigned this responsibility to the Commission on Constitutional
Matters. As stated in Op. 23-3006:
Question 6:

Assuming a university of the Synod and its
board of regents are eligible parties to the
dispute resolution process set forth in Synod
Bylaw section 1.10, does the dispute resolution process apply to a dispute between the
Synod (or its President or Board of Directors) and a board of regents regarding that
board of regents unilaterally amending or
modifying its governance documents, and
regarding whether the action of the board
of regents is within the authority granted to
it under the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod?

Opinion:
Essentially, no. The fundamental material
question of whether a Synod university has the authority
to unilaterally change its governance from that prescribed

173

in the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod,
since such a question pertains fundamentally not to the presenting fact situation but to the interpretation and meaning
of the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod,
is outside of the authority of the dispute resolution process
to arbitrate or adjudicate, as stated in the Bylaws. Authority to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod is specifically given by the Bylaws only to
the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters (Bylaw
3.9.2.2). Any dispute resolution process is subject in all
its aspects to “Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions,
and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod” (Bylaw
1.10.18). As to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod,
opinions of this commission are finally dispositive of any
questions as to their interpretation that arise during a dispute resolution process (Bylaw 1.10.18 [h], [h][1]). While
the question of whether a board of regents has the authority described is thus finally resolved by this commission’s
interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws in the negative, this is not to foreclose the applicability of the dispute
resolution process to disagreements or disputes, related to
or arising out of this action, as may apply to the board of
regents as a whole or to individual regents as “members of
congregations of the Synod elected or appointed to positions with … an agency of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.10.2 [5]).
Any proposal to submit a dispute regarding matters of governance
either to the Synod’s dispute resolution process or an external mediator is out of order.
The commission notes, as it did in Op. 23-3006, that the Synod’s
dispute resolution process could be available to the various individuals involved in the dispute should they desire to seek personal
reconciliation, and is the exclusive remedy (Bylaw 1.10.1.1):
1.10.1.1 The Holy Scriptures (1 Cor. 6:1–7) urge Christians to
settle their differences by laying them before the “members
of the brotherhood.” Therefore, the Synod in the spirit of 1
Corinthians 6 calls upon all parties to a disagreement, accusation, controversy, or disciplinary action to rely exclusively
and fully on the Synod’s system of reconciliation and conflict resolution. The use of the Synod’s conflict resolution
procedures shall be the exclusive and final remedy for those
who are in dispute. Fitness for ministry and other theological matters must be determined within the church. Parties to
disputes are urged, in matters of a doctrinal nature, to follow
the procedures as outlined in Bylaw section 1.8.
The parties here would be required to use the 1.10 dispute resolution process, which includes both the formal component and the
informal component. If the parties desire to use a mediator in that
informal process, they would be required to use a Synod reconciler (Bylaw 1.10.5) rather than an external mediator. Any use of an
external process or mediator is precluded by Bylaw section 1.10.

Specific Ministry Pastor Supervision of
Commissioned Ministers (23-3017)
Minutes of March 15–16, 2024
By an email of September 27, a district president requested an opinion on the following questions regarding the permissibility of supervision of commissioned ministers by a specific ministry pastor
(SMP). Consonant with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), the commission requested, received, and reviewed input from the Council of Presidents and
members of the Pastoral Formation Committee. Having concluded
2026 Convention Workbook