A tiny minority of delegates will arrive in Phoenix this weekend having digested Today's Business sufficiently to vote with confidence and authority. Let us help you sift through what's important.
On the universities. A synod our size only needs one university to train it's workers. Pick the one that is most faithful to subsidize and require the others to be self sufficient or be closed and sold off for parts.
The 2026 Resolution 5-10 raises concerns about “complex and morally weighty questions about human organ donation and transplantation and the implications of its encouragement and routinization.”
Yet the only moral question given is that the 1981 Res. 8-05 “may, even unintentionally, burden the consciences of church workers and laity”. Nothing in Resolution 5-10 discusses “the practice and moral implications of routinized human organ donation and transplantation”.
Specifically not addressed in Resolution 5-10 are any moral implications of organ donation that were identified in a July 21, 2025 HHS report, “HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System” (https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hrsa-to-reform-organ-transplant-system.html).
Furthermore, Res. 5-10 is based on Overture 5-23, submitted by Indiana District Circuit 9, which "Resolved, That the Synod in convention rescind 1981 Res. 8-05”. Apparently the Synod Convention is not allowed on its own to rescind one of its own previous resolutions.
It’s also a shame that the Overture’s description of the 1981 Res. 8-05 as “jejune and theologically dubious” ended up on the cutting-room floor of Committee 5.
2026 Resolution 4-08 arbitrarily identifies “Current political and social issues such as racism, antisemitism, and specific aberrations associated with “Christian Nationalism” and resolves that the CTCR “examine such political and social issues, especially racism, antisemitism, and Christian Nationalism, and prepare documents as it deems appropriate for the edification of the Synod”.
Res. 4-08 is based on Overtures 4-13 thru 4-22; only 4-13 and 4-14 specifically deal with Christian Nationalism, with Ov. 4-13 stating, “There is no set or agreed-upon form of what constitutes Christian nationalism”, and Ov. 4-14 stating, “There is much fear and misunderstanding of what is and is not Christian nationalism”.
If the CTCR is to examine and prepare documents about Christian Nationalism, it should first define what Christian Nationalism is and is not.
One helpful source is an April 22, 2024, article, “18 Points of Christian Nationalism – a 2nd Draft” (https://matthewcochran.net/blog/18-points-of-christian-nationalism-a-2nd-draft/), by Matthew E. Cochran. The first point is: “Christian Nationalism is a political ideology informed by the Christian faith, not a religion informed by political ideology.”
“[I]f individual church members are not seen as “confessors” of their church body’s doctrine, then the concept of church membership is watered down to the point of meaninglessness. The rationale for any catechesis in the traditional sense of the term vanishes, and there emerges a resounding contradiction between our own confirmation process and the attitude with which we view members of other denominations. Indeed, there would be no theological rejoinder possible to a member of an adult membership class in one of our churches who publicly rejected (for example) the Lutheran doctrine of baptism and still wanted to join the congregation....”
Despite that statement, the 2004 LCMS Convention Resolution 2-03A, To Accept Lutheran Service Book and Agenda as an Official Service Book and Hymnal of Synod (p. 124) included the Agenda's "First Communion Prior to Confirmation" so-called "rite".
If the claim were to be made that Resolution 2-03A and its pre-confirmation communion "rite" supersedes the CTCR position in its 1999 Report, then such a notion of superseding resolutions would apply to resolutions from the Synod Conventions after 2004, particularly the 2007 Res. 3-09, 2013 Res. 4-10, 2016 Res. 5-15, 2019 Res. 4-11A, and 2023 Res. 5-09. Several of these resolutions refer specifically to the 1999 CTCR’s “"Admission to the Lord's Supper”. The 2013 Res. 4-10 particularly stated:
“The practice of inviting all baptized believers who merely affirm the real presence while neglecting to address the necessity of unity of confession, is not consistent with the biblical and confessional position of the Synod”
The proposed 2026 Resolution 5-05 again recalls and affirms these previous convention resolutions. However, Resolution 5-05 essentially is concerned with the issues of:
1. The phrases, “close communion” and “closed communion”, which have been repeatedly discussed and settled in past convention resolutions.
2. The “rare and genuinely difficult situations of unusual personal need and pastoral care”, and the problem of compiling a list of “acceptable exceptions” for open communion in a manner similar to the Synod, in the years following 2001, attempting to deal with identifying once-in-a-lifetime acceptable situations of syncretism.
3. Functional Open Communion, where the church’s concern is limited to an individual’s worthiness without further consideration of that communicant’s confession.
Early (open) communion for pre-confirmation pre-teens down to potty-trained pre-kindergarteners is not addressed in the 2026 Resolution 5-05.
Your work has been amazing on this front. Thank you for all the time spent. I pray it helps the delegates.
The convention starts next week.
Thanks for catching. Will correct
On the universities. A synod our size only needs one university to train it's workers. Pick the one that is most faithful to subsidize and require the others to be self sufficient or be closed and sold off for parts.
The 2026 Resolution 5-10 raises concerns about “complex and morally weighty questions about human organ donation and transplantation and the implications of its encouragement and routinization.”
Yet the only moral question given is that the 1981 Res. 8-05 “may, even unintentionally, burden the consciences of church workers and laity”. Nothing in Resolution 5-10 discusses “the practice and moral implications of routinized human organ donation and transplantation”.
Specifically not addressed in Resolution 5-10 are any moral implications of organ donation that were identified in a July 21, 2025 HHS report, “HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System” (https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hrsa-to-reform-organ-transplant-system.html).
Furthermore, Res. 5-10 is based on Overture 5-23, submitted by Indiana District Circuit 9, which "Resolved, That the Synod in convention rescind 1981 Res. 8-05”. Apparently the Synod Convention is not allowed on its own to rescind one of its own previous resolutions.
It’s also a shame that the Overture’s description of the 1981 Res. 8-05 as “jejune and theologically dubious” ended up on the cutting-room floor of Committee 5.
2026 Resolution 4-08 arbitrarily identifies “Current political and social issues such as racism, antisemitism, and specific aberrations associated with “Christian Nationalism” and resolves that the CTCR “examine such political and social issues, especially racism, antisemitism, and Christian Nationalism, and prepare documents as it deems appropriate for the edification of the Synod”.
Res. 4-08 is based on Overtures 4-13 thru 4-22; only 4-13 and 4-14 specifically deal with Christian Nationalism, with Ov. 4-13 stating, “There is no set or agreed-upon form of what constitutes Christian nationalism”, and Ov. 4-14 stating, “There is much fear and misunderstanding of what is and is not Christian nationalism”.
If the CTCR is to examine and prepare documents about Christian Nationalism, it should first define what Christian Nationalism is and is not.
One helpful source is an April 22, 2024, article, “18 Points of Christian Nationalism – a 2nd Draft” (https://matthewcochran.net/blog/18-points-of-christian-nationalism-a-2nd-draft/), by Matthew E. Cochran. The first point is: “Christian Nationalism is a political ideology informed by the Christian faith, not a religion informed by political ideology.”
In 1999 the CTCR released its report, "Admission to the Lord's Supper: Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110427143245/https://www.lcms.org/document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=411), which includes the following:
“[I]f individual church members are not seen as “confessors” of their church body’s doctrine, then the concept of church membership is watered down to the point of meaninglessness. The rationale for any catechesis in the traditional sense of the term vanishes, and there emerges a resounding contradiction between our own confirmation process and the attitude with which we view members of other denominations. Indeed, there would be no theological rejoinder possible to a member of an adult membership class in one of our churches who publicly rejected (for example) the Lutheran doctrine of baptism and still wanted to join the congregation....”
Despite that statement, the 2004 LCMS Convention Resolution 2-03A, To Accept Lutheran Service Book and Agenda as an Official Service Book and Hymnal of Synod (p. 124) included the Agenda's "First Communion Prior to Confirmation" so-called "rite".
If the claim were to be made that Resolution 2-03A and its pre-confirmation communion "rite" supersedes the CTCR position in its 1999 Report, then such a notion of superseding resolutions would apply to resolutions from the Synod Conventions after 2004, particularly the 2007 Res. 3-09, 2013 Res. 4-10, 2016 Res. 5-15, 2019 Res. 4-11A, and 2023 Res. 5-09. Several of these resolutions refer specifically to the 1999 CTCR’s “"Admission to the Lord's Supper”. The 2013 Res. 4-10 particularly stated:
“The practice of inviting all baptized believers who merely affirm the real presence while neglecting to address the necessity of unity of confession, is not consistent with the biblical and confessional position of the Synod”
The proposed 2026 Resolution 5-05 again recalls and affirms these previous convention resolutions. However, Resolution 5-05 essentially is concerned with the issues of:
1. The phrases, “close communion” and “closed communion”, which have been repeatedly discussed and settled in past convention resolutions.
2. The “rare and genuinely difficult situations of unusual personal need and pastoral care”, and the problem of compiling a list of “acceptable exceptions” for open communion in a manner similar to the Synod, in the years following 2001, attempting to deal with identifying once-in-a-lifetime acceptable situations of syncretism.
3. Functional Open Communion, where the church’s concern is limited to an individual’s worthiness without further consideration of that communicant’s confession.
Early (open) communion for pre-confirmation pre-teens down to potty-trained pre-kindergarteners is not addressed in the 2026 Resolution 5-05.