Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 452
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 452

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

STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

452

Perhaps the most natural option for a district to remove its
president from office, without his being removed first from
the roster of the Synod under Bylaw section 2.15, would be
by the calling of a special convention to deal with the matter,
as (Const. Art. XI A 2) “[t]he Synod at all times has the right
to call its officers to account and, if circumstances require it,
to remove them from office in accordance with Christian
procedure” (cited in “CCM Opinion re Removal of District
Presidents from Office, Ag. 729, minutes of Feb. 21–22,
1975). At the Synod level, a special session of the convention
may be called “by three-fourths of the district presidents
without the consent of the President” (Article VIII B 2), but
there is no obvious alternative to the district president as
“convener” of a special session of a district in Const. Art.
XII 15.
This presents something of a conundrum on the district level, should
a district find that it needs to call its president to account and directly
remove him from office for cause in a circumstance where removal
from the roster of the Synod (which would trigger his removal from
office) is not called for.
The CCM referred this matter to the Commission on Handbook
(COH) and the two, through the Secretary, initiated discussion of
the matter by the Council of Presidents, a discussion that resulted in
no proposal. The COH finds it incongruous with the provisions of
Const. Art. XI A 1–4 that a district president might be able to
prevent the body from convening that might call him urgently to
give account of his stewardship. There being no other explicit
means (other than the President of the Synod invoking the
procedure of Bylaw section 2.15 to remove the district president
from the roster of the Synod and, thereby, from office) for this to
occur, the COH presents the following constitutional amendment,
which would allow the congregations of a district, acting through
their circuits, to call a special convention of their district in a manner
similar to the ability of three-fourths of the district presidents, in a
case of urgent necessity, to call a special Synod convention without
the consent of the President (Const. Art. VIII B 2), which reads:
•

Article VIII Synodical Meetings
…
B. Special Sessions of the Synod
…
2. In cases of urgent necessity a special session may be called by the
President with the consent of two-thirds of the district presidents
or by three-fourths of the district presidents without the consent
of the President; however, all congregations and other members
of the Synod must be notified 30 days in advance and told for
what purpose this extra meeting is being convened.

As this would be a constitutional amendment, subsequent
ratification by the congregations is required under Const. Art. XV
4.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That Constitution Article XII 15 be amended as
follows:

2026 Convention Workbook

PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING

Article XII Districts of the Synod and Their Regulation
…
15.In cases of urgent necessity a special session of the district may
be called by the district president is empowered to convene
special sessions of his district; he must, however, previously have
obtained with the consent of at least a majority of the voting
members of the district or by circuit forums in three-fourths of
the circuits of the district without the consent of the district
president after having informed them; however, all congregations
and other members of the district and the President of the Synod
must be notified 30 days in advance and told for what of the
purpose of the this intended special session extra meeting is being
convened.

and be it further
Resolved, That the above amendment be submitted, according to
Const. Art. XV 4, to the congregations of the Synod for ratification.
Commission on Handbook
Ov. 9-04

To Amend Bylaws regarding Doctrinal Review
Rationale
The Synod has a sweeping basic principle of inclusivity for
doctrinal review. It is stated in Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (a): “All official
periodicals and journals of the Synod as well as any material with
doctrinal content issued publicly by boards, commissions, or other
subordinate groups of the Synod except as stipulated in these
Bylaws shall be subject to doctrinal review.”
An exception, recognized in the Synod’s Bylaws since 1971, is
“study documents and exploratory material plainly designated as
such,” as subparagraph (b) continues. In 2023, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters (CCM) opined that “boards, commissions,
or other subordinate groups of the Synod” (as Bylaw 1.9.1.1 [b] puts
it) are constrained to release study materials related to their
assignment from the Synod. For example, the CCM itself should
not “produce study materials on exegetical [biblical interpretation]
or doctrinal topics,” for these fields lie outside the CCM’s purview
(CCM Opinion 23-3010). If Concordia Publishing House (CPH)
itself were to release study materials, these would necessarily
concern the responsibilities with which CPH is charged by the
Synod, namely, publishing, marketing, and distribution. The CCM
further noted that the vintage of some materials that might be
published—dating, for instance, to the sixteenth century or earlier—
does not exempt them from the requirement for doctrinal review,
although the results of the review must be reported differently than
when discussions can be held with living authors.
In 2007 the Synod modified its previous Bylaw from 1971 to
provide for public issue of non-reviewed study materials and
specified a disclaimer to be carried on or immediately after the
publication’s title page, as still found in as Bylaw 1.9.1.1 (b). In
principle, the status of the materials as “study documents and
exploratory material” remained unaltered. Yet in fact, when
tentative materials are disseminated widely, especially in an age of
instant communication and internet archiving, this very widespread
distribution lends them a “staying power,” wrapping them in a
mantle of permanency. Thus is undermined in practice the spirit of
the basic principle that doctrinal review is done on all materials with
doctrinal content issued publicly by the Synod.