Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 183
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 183

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

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
The commission thanks the district president for the question, and
if further insight is sought, would encourage him to consult the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations document “Public
Rebuke of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment” (May 2006).

Pastoral Formation Committee and Existing
Routes (24-3039)
Minutes of March 21–22, 2025
A congregation of the Synod, by an email of Nov. 11, requested an
opinion on the following questions. Consistent with Bylaw 3.9.2.2
(b), written input was solicited from the boards of regents of seminaries and universities of the Synod, as well as from the members
of the Pastoral Formation Committee.
Background: The Pastoral Formation Committee (PFC) was created by 2016 Resolution 6-01 to foster collaboration between the
seminaries, following the report of the 2013 Res. 5-14A Task Force,
which “recognized ‘the need to provide for greater coordination
and collaboration between our two seminaries’” and “recommended ‘that there be an entity ensuring that the seminaries do coordinate and collaborate with respect to these various programs’” (2016
R64, Workbook, p. 279).
The Handbook provisions governing the PFC appear in Bylaws
3.10.4–3.10.4.7. In addition to fostering collaboration, the PFC is
assigned one specific power: it “shall” recommend any new routes
leading to ordination for approval by resolution of the Synod (Bylaw 3.10.4.1).
The PFC also is directed to “review, assess, coordinate, support
and make suggestions for improvement of all existing noncolloquy
routes leading to ordination in the Synod, including seminary and
pre-seminary education programs” (Bylaw 3.10.4.3). Other PFC
responsibilities are outlined in Bylaws 3.10.4 and 3.10.4.4–5.
The 2023 Synod convention resolved “That the seminaries, in consultation with the Pastoral Formation Committee, retain responsibility for the academic, admissions, and financial parameters for
each approved non-residential route to ordination in the Synod”
(2023 Resolution 6-03A).
The Bylaws governing the seminary board of regents are found
at 3.10.5–3.10.5.5. Particularly relevant to this opinion is Bylaw
3.10.5: “Each seminary of the Synod, with its president and faculty,
shall be governed by a board of regents, subject to general policies
set by the Synod.”
Question 1:

If a seminary board of regents wishes to modify the
academic, admissions, or financial parameters, or
the means or place of instruction, for any existing
approved non-residential, noncolloquy route to ordination in the Synod of such seminary, and such
action would otherwise comply with any applicable
Synod Bylaw, Constitution, or resolution requirements or restrictions on the authority of such board
(e.g., the third resolved in 2023 Res. 6-03A), do the
provisions of Bylaws 3.10.4–3.10.4.7 require such
board to obtain the authorization or consent of the
PFC before the board takes such action?

Opinion: As further background specific to this question, the Bylaws concerning the PFC need to be read in conjunction with the
Bylaws governing seminaries as “general policies set by the Synod” (Bylaw 3.10.5). As such, a seminary board of regents must

183

comply with obligations imposed on the seminaries by applicable
PFC bylaws.
Bylaws 3.10.4.1–2 are limited to “new routes to ordination.” As
the question does not involve “new routes to ordination,” Bylaws
3.10.4.1–2 are not applicable. (Nonetheless, the commission notes
that the PFC could raise an objection to a modification of an existing
route so extensive that it could be construed as effectively “new,” in
which case these provisions might be found to be applicable.) This
leads to Bylaw 3.10.4.3 to determine if said bylaw applies.
Bylaw 3.10.4.3 states: “The committee shall review, assess, coordinate, support and make suggestions for improvement of all existing noncolloquy routes leading to ordination in the Synod, including seminary and pre-seminary education programs.” Because
the question refers to “seminary” and “existing noncolloquy routes
leading to ordination,” Bylaw 3.10.4.3 is applicable; the question
remains to what degree Bylaw 3.10.4.3 is applicable to the question
at hand.
The question before us refers to consent and authorization. For
consent and authorization to be a duty and responsibility of the PFC
and a requirement to be satisfied by a seminary board of regents
such a requirement would need to be laid out either explicitly or
implicitly as a prerequisite to fulfilling or complying with either the
Synod’s Constitution or Bylaws. Nothing in Bylaw 3.10.4.3 rises
to that standard.
Having answered that, as to the question asked, the seminary would
not need to receive consent and authorization from the PFC, it
should be noted that the change or changes referred to do need to
be submitted to the PFC in order for the PFC to perform its duty
to “review, assess, coordinate, support and make suggestions for
improvement to” the seminary’s proposed plan.
Question 2:

If a Concordia University System institution board
of regents wishes to modify the academic, admissions, or financial parameters, or the means or place
of instruction, for any existing pre-seminary education program of such institution, and such action
would otherwise comply with any applicable Synod Bylaw, Constitution, or resolution requirements
or restrictions on the authority of such board (e.g.,
Bylaw 3.6.6.1), do the provisions of Bylaws 3.10.4–
3.10.4.7 require such board to obtain the authorization or consent of the PFC before the board takes
such action?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.10.4.3 renders pre-seminary education programs
within the scope of the PFC’s review, assessment, coordination,
support, and suggestion of improvements. This work of the PFC is
to be accommodated by Synod universities offering pre-seminary
programs, which, like the seminaries, are not required to obtain
PFC consent or authorization for such modifications.

Lutheran Church Extension Fund Real Estate
Solutions (24-3042)
Minutes of April 7, 2025
By an email of Dec. 2, the President and CEO of the Lutheran
Church Extension Fund (LCEF) forwarded a request for opinion on
a series of questions:
Background:
LCEF is considering being involved in some
level of real estate development work in concert with property
owned by one or more LCMS-related entities that would qualify as
2026 Convention Workbook