Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 186
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 186

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

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

186

Family Life Ministry (DFLM) as a type of commissioned minister
and authorized BHE/CUS, presumably under 2004 Bylaw 3.8.3.4
(c), to “review and approve new programs” in this area under its
broad assignment to “have overall responsibility to provide for the
education of commissioned ministers” (2004 Bylaw 3.8.3.1). The
resolution described the program thus:
The family life program is multi-disciplinary, emphasizing
theology, sociology, law, economics, and scripturally sound
psychology. The family life graduate will possess the theological, academic, and practical training needed for providing
specialized services to families in a variety of situations and
settings. Students preparing for the position of Director of
Family Life Ministry will participate in a program of study
that conforms to the requirements established by the Concordia University System for admitting, monitoring, and placing
church-vocations students. The requirements for the study of
theology are the same as for Lutheran teacher and director of
Christian education students. Family life ministry programs
on Concordia University System campuses will maintain
required academic standards so that graduates will also be
eligible for professional licensure.
Today, CUS is charged:
•

on the one hand, to “review and approve new implementations of and discontinuance, whether actual or constructive,
of programs of study leading to professional church work
in the interest of the institution(s) and the Synod” (Bylaw
3.6.6.1 [b]), to maintain standards for such programs (Bylaw 3.6.6.4 and its subparagraph [c]), and to conduct visitation and possible disaffirmation of such programs (Bylaw
3.6.6.4.1 and its subparagraph [d]), and

•

on the other, to “receive, revise, and recommend to conventions of the Synod for approval any proposals for creating,
essentially revising, or renaming programs of study and certification for commissioned ministry” (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [g]).

The question before the commission is whether the authorization
of DFLM programs as indicated falls under the former provision,
thus requiring only CUS approval, or the latter, instead requiring
approval of the convention.
The CUS resolution does not create or rename a program of study
and certification for commissioned ministry, so as to create or rename a new category of commissioned ministry, to be added to the
list presented today in Bylaw 2.6.1.1. Such would clearly require
action of the convention, pursuant to a recommendation from CUS
as described in Bylaw 3.6.6.1 (g).
This leaves the question of whether the resolution amounts to “new
implementation[s]” (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [b], delegated to CUS) or an
essential revision (Bylaw 3.6.6.1 [g], requiring convention action)
of an existing program of study and certification for commissioned
ministry/leading to professional church work (namely the DFLM
program). The former, within the realm of CUS BOD to approve,
would be an implementation by a new Concordia university or in
an incidentally different outward form of the essence of an existing
program among those listed in Bylaw 2.6.1.1. The latter, requiring
convention approval, would be a revision of the “intrinsic, fundamental nature” or of “an indispensable element” (Collins Dictionary) of an existing church work program to have a fundamentally
different requirement with regard to some presently indispensable
element. In the former case, a graduate’s formation by a “new
implementation” would be readily recognized as “equivalent” in
2026 Convention Workbook

terms of subject matter expertise and ministerial formation to that
of a graduate of one of the other implementations; in the latter, the
formation of a graduate of an “essentially revised” program might
not be.
While the relative evaluation of curricula belongs to CUS and not
to this commission, the commission observes that the language of
“minor curricular changes” and “including substantially equivalent
subject matter” seems consistent with the sort of “new implementation” of an existing program described in Bylaw 3.6.6.1 (b) and,
therefore, within the authority of CUS BOD to authorize.
The commission notes, however, that the provided white paper
indicates “all rostered, commissioned workers in the LCMS take
core theology classes that include the study of Old Testament, New
Testament, doctrine and confessions of the LCMS, methods in religious education, and the role of the church professional. A DFLM
takes these classes as well.” However, as might be expected, the
master’s level program descriptions provided do not include this
coursework. The commission thus understands the master’s program to be incomplete, as to certification, in itself, requiring the
“core theology class” requirements to be satisfied through a prior
undergraduate church work program or some other means. It has
been clarified for the commission that, while the master’s degree
is not inclusive of the theology requirements, a track for completion of said requirements would be provided and required for those
seeking certification, either via classes at the respective Concordia
or through CUEnet (whether by certification or colloquy). This was
likened to the “modularity” of the education major and Lutheran
Teacher Diploma pathway at a number of Concordia universities.
Considered within this context, this nuance does not alter the commission’s conclusion, stated above.

Presidential Appointment following Invalid Circuit
Election (26-3074)
Minutes of February 6–7, 2026
The Secretary of the Synod posed a question as follows:
Question:

A circuit conducted timely elections for pastoral and
lay delegate and alternates to the Synod convention,
correct in all respects except that the alternate lay
delegate was elected from the same congregation
as, and subsequent to, the alternate pastoral delegate. The alternate lay delegate was, therefore, not
certified by the district secretary. After the bylaw
certification deadline, the lay delegate was rendered
unable to attend the convention. Does the defective election of an alternate lay delegate preserve
the ability of the district president to appoint a replacement lay delegate for the circuit under Bylaw
3.1.2.1 (m)?

Background:
Op. 10-2580, 13-2675, and 19-2906 do not
definitively answer this question. Op. 10-2580 notes that “Bylaw
3.1.2.1 (j) allows appointment by a district president in some instances of defective elections. However, in each of those prior instances considered by the CCM where that right was recognized,
an election was held in a timely manner, but was defective in some
other respect.” Op. 10-2580 seems to refer to Ag. 1851 (Dec. 3,
1998), in which the commission commended appointment of replacements by the district president in a situation where delegates
and alternates had been elected “timely” but outside the forum and
by a procedure other than that specified in the bylaws. At the same
time, Op. 19-2906 speaks of “due election” and Op. 13-2675 states