PR2 — President's Report, Part 2 (2026) — LCMS 2026

“Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” ()

Introduction My dear brothers and sisters in Jesus: It has always been my custom to present a theological piece on this occasion of Floor Committee Weekend, based upon the theme of our upcoming convention. In the second part of this presentation, I’ll highlight some challenges we face and offer a few thoughts for your floor committees. But first: “Alleluia! Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!” Indeed, the resurrection is the heart of all Christian faith and life. And it gives us all we need to face the many challenges before us.

The Enlightenment and Biblical Interpretation

The glorious fact of the resurrection is repeated over and again in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament. In this 250th anniversary of our nation, we do well to note that perhaps the greatest and most insightful and influential man, when it com es to the founding of our nation and its founding documents, particularly the Bill of Rights, had not the slightest understanding of the New Testament.

It was Thomas Jefferson who advocated for the production of the Bill of Rights and influenced it by his letters to James Madison, the author. Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was also key to the First Amendment. How reasonable and glorious it is. Later, however, Jefferson privately chopped up a copy of the New Testament and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English. He edited it with a pair of scissors in 1804 . It was unfortunately published by the Smithsonian in 1904 and handed out to both houses of Congress for years. Jefferson wrote in the preface that it was an easy task plucking the (moral) “diamonds” from the “dung hill.”

What did Jefferson regard as so much dung? Well, his recension has no virgin birth. No angels. No miracles. No claims to divinity. No passion predictions. No “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

No institution of Baptism. No Trinity at Jesus’ Baptism. No institution of the Lord’s Supper. No Office of the Keys. No . The last line of the book is , “And they rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed.” So much for the alleged “life” and morals of Jesus! Hermann Sasse asserted that it is not the “morals” of Jesus that are unique, though they are as Jefferson wrote “sublime.” Every moral teaching of Jesus can be found in other religious and religious writers.

Jefferson was a true son of the Enlightenment also on religion. He followed in the paths set before him by Deists like Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who believed that Jesus’ disciples did not directly fabricate falsities, but that later Christians enveloped the Gospels in mythology. In fact, Jefferson owned and annotated a copy of Christian Wolff’s Institutes of the Law of Nature and Nations (1750). (Wolff caused untold havoc in German Lutheranism around 1750.) David Friedrich Strauss (1808– 1874), in Das Leben Jesu (1835), built on Reimarus’ skepticism and viewed the Gospel narratives as mythic constructions of the community, not written by the apostles but by much later Christians, and quite at odds with Jesus’ own self-identity.

Jesus Had Wire-Rimmed Glasses!

LCMS friend Hermann Sasse, student of ultimate liberal scholar Adolf von Harnack, joked about the culmination of the 19th century’s “quest for the historical Jesus” (“Leben Jesu Forschung”). The greatest German scholars had intensely searched and investigated the New Testament trying to figure out who the real Jesus was. What did they discover? That Jesus was a 19th -century German liberal looking back at them from the pages of the Gospels, complete with gold wire-rimmed glasses!

We have seen the horrid results of this ever more radical approach to the Bible, especially in mainline Protestantism but growing also in evangelicalism. Roman Catholicism has by no means been immune, nor have we in the LCMS in what became Seminex. All of the historically Lutheran churches of Europe are in a death rattle or worse. The Lutheran World Federation, following in their wake, is continuing the spread of contagion around the world. (See “The Lutheran World Federation Today” by LCMS Church Relations Director Rev. Dr. Jonathan Shaw at lcms.org .) The whole paradigm must be ditched if the Gospel is to be proclaimed.

Gods Dying and Rising Right and Left?

The ancients had gods who died and rose (Tammuz, Bel - Marduk, Adonis, Sandan-Heracles of Tarsus, Attis, Osiris, the Cretan Zeus, Dionysius … and cf. the Mithras sacrifice and double life of Kore. (Albrecht Oepke, " ἐγείρω, κτλ.," TDNT 2:335).) But Paul’s interactions with the pagan philosophers in Athens highlights something very significant. “To speak of a man as judge and of the resurrection of a real man from the dead must have seemed to Greeks to be such hair -raising nonsense that their patience was exhausted” (The Journal Articles of Hermann Sasse, p. 234).

Resurrection No Myth; Justification as Myth

The resurrection of Christ is no myth. That’s a major source of the offense of the Gospel of the New Testament. A religion of law/ethics like that of Jefferson needs no resurrection. All modern and postmodern theologies that masquerade as Christian and eve n Lutheran, while rejecting the fundamental biblical doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God by grace through faith, finally turn the Gospel into law. Political liberation of peoples, of women from oppression, of the environment from global warming — to the extent they are not an excuse for Marxism — may be fine works of law/love. But they are not the Gospel. Justification and resurrection cannot be contextualized into something else. Justification rests squarely upon Christ’s resurrection. The Gospel can never be contextualized into law. He “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (). The Gospel of the resurrection floats off into the mist (Pferdmist!) of mysticism, which always looks for a Jesus apart from the actual apostolic witness of the Bible.

Hadrian Marks the Spot!

In A.D. 130, Roman Emperor Hadrian reconstructed Jerusalem into a pagan city. In doing so, he intentionally desecrated the location of the crucifixion (Golgotha) and resurrection. These places were remembered indelibly and were sites of Christian worship after A.D. 33 and even up to A.D. 130. Archeology has shown definitively that the site — then outside the city wall — was a quarry, then a garden, then a cemetery. Hadrian did us a favor. He leveled Golgotha and the tomb of Christ. He built a wall, stairs a nd a platform. The stairs are still there. He placed a statue and temple of Jupiter over the tomb and a statue of Venus over Golgotha. The pagan gods marked the spot for 180 years!

Constantine’s Mother

When Constantine came to power, he sent his mother to find and mark the places of the great events in Christ’s life. She co-opted Jerusalem Bishop Marcarius for the first -ever recorded archaeological dig in Jerusalem. Eusebius recounts that they found the very monument by which Christians had marked the spot of the crucifixion under the statue of Venus, and they found the very tomb of Christ under the statue of Jupiter. Constantine built a church and the Mausoleum of the Anastasis. (Read and see the whole marvelous story in Where God Came Down: The Archeological Evidence by Joel P. Kramer.)

No Resurrection Deniers in the Community Of course, we see right in the New Testament that there were deniers of the resurrection. The religious leaders were invested in retaining the status quo. However, it is very significant that there are no resurrection deniers from within the Christian community. The early religious authorities in Jerusalem responded predictably. “While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘Tell people, “His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.” And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble’” ().

There is, of course, a denial of the Christian’s resurrection by the “Christ party” (), but they were not explicitly denying Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s argument is that by denying the Christian’s resurrection, they denied Christ’s own resurrection. First Paul asserts the fact of the resurrection.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me” ().

“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” ().

Josephus’ (A.D. 37/8–100) Silence Is Deafening Josephus mentions the crucifixion as fact, but of the resurrection states, “But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported Jesus had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive” (Paul Maier, Josephus: The Essential Writings , p. 264; Antiquities XVIII.63). Paul Maier notes that “no one has pointed out that Josephus does not seek to scotch the resurrection claim by any information at his disposal that Jesus’ body still lay in its tomb. Certainly, this is an argument from silence, but the silence is especially eloquent in view of Josephus’ known habit of roasting false Messiahs elsewhere in his histories, in contrast to the near-favorable reference here.” Maier notes that though early Jewish sources deny the resurrection, none of them deny the tomb was empty. “His disciples stole His body,” they countered. And this line of defense continued into the second century and down to today (Paul Maier, In the Fullness of Time , p. 200).

The Case of James, Christ’s Brother: “Jesus Is Out of His Mind” The Gospels state that Jesus’ “brother” and “family” do not believe. “Then He went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when His family heard it, they went out to seize Him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of His mind’” ( –21). St. Paul notes the remarkable fact that Jesus appeared to His brother prior to the apostles. “Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (). Luke records the following, “Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James, [none of these named James were the Lord’s brother.] All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers” (). And finally, the fact that James, the brother of Christ, came to be “a pillar” of the church in Jerusalem according to Paul is significant. “When James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentile and they to the circumcised” (). What but the appearance of the resurrected Christ to His brother accounts for this conversion? Reiche places this meeting in A.D. 49 and Galatians at A.D. 55.

Paul: Zealous Murderer to Christian Zealot And there is the case of St. Paul, hardened opponent of Jesus and the church (; 22; 26; ; ; ; ), who is at the stoning of Stephen circa A.D. 34, urging on the murderers. Paul is described as “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,” who “went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (). How can Paul’s stark about- face be explained apart from the resurrected Christ’s appearance to him? “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” () a voice asked him in A.D. 36, three years after the resurrection.

No One; Not One Then there is an argument that is silent but powerful. There is simply no one from within the earliest church who ever came forward and denied the resurrection occurred, or that anything in the Gospels did not happen. No one ever asserted that he/she was present with Jesus, or claimed a relative or friend was with the apostles then or long after, and claimed the resurrection was a lie.

A Mythical New Testament as the Product of the

Community Debunked

Already half a century or more ago, Lutheran Bo Reicke (Bill Weinrich’s doctor father) and J.A.T. Robinson eviscerated the paradigm. They demonstrated that the entire New Testament was written prior to the Jewish -Roman War. “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple — is never once mentioned as a past fact” (J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, p. 13). Simply put, there is no way none of the all-Jewish authors of the New Testament could possibly have not mentioned the Jewish -Roman War (A.D. 66 –73), which culminated in the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This assertion is particularly poignant in light of the predictions by Jesus that it would happen. The whole evolutionary paradigm that asserts Mark’s Gospel is early and simple, and that John is late first century or even second century and not composed by John because it allegedly has more mythical accounts, is toast. The idea that St. Paul cooked up a religion at odds with the real religion of Jesus is D.O.A., including the idea that a number of his letters impose Roman ideas of sex or views of homosexuality at odds with Jesus, including a high Christology and the divinity of Christ. The facts are that the whole New Testament was written within a little over 30 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. I don’t know about you, but I well recall events of 1996. If today some group of people were to write falsely about the issue and person or people I cared most about and knew personally, I guarantee you I’d write a rebuttal stating, “I was there. It didn’t happen that way.” The Bible is true, and archeology is proving that virtually every day. (See the work of Bo Reicke on the synoptic Gospels and Paul. Bo Reicke, Re -examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence , and Joel Kramer, Where God Came Down).

The Fact of the Resurrection in the New Testament

There are, of course, dozens of texts.

“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” ().

“He is not here, for He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where He lay” ().

“Eight days later, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in My side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.’ Thomas answered Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” ().

“God raised Him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it” ().

The Effects of the Resurrection “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (). Without the resurrection, Jesus is no divine Son of God.

“And was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no sacrifice for sins and no justification by grace through faith.

“Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no divine Word of God.

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no reconciliation.

“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life” ().

No resurrection, no Spirit, no witness, no mission.

The Spirit enlivens the words of and regarding

Christ.

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” ().

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no grace.

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” ().

There is no Christian faith without the resurrection!

“And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” ().

No faith and hope in God without the resurrection.

“Who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” ().

Without the resurrection, sin has dominion.

“We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him” (). Without the resurrection, there is no Son of God, no apostle, no St. Paul, no grace, no faith and no witness to the nations.

“And [He] was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name among all the nations” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no forgiveness of sins in Baptism, no conversion, no resurrection to faith and life.

“Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no confession and absolution.

“On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld’” ().

Without the resurrection, the Sacrament of the

Altar is merely a human sociological sham, and not the assurance of eternal life.

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever’” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no indwelling of the Spirit.

“If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no prayer, no access to the Father.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no Christian fruit, no Christian love.

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no Christian joy.

“So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no Christian hope.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no one interceding for us with the Father.

“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us” ().

Without the resurrection, we are dead in sin.

“Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death He died He died to sin, once for all, but the life He lives He lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” ().

Without the resurrection, there is only judgment, indeed no certainty of Christian righteousness.

“Because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead” ().

Without the resurrection, the Old Testament is false, there is no conversion.

“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no new life in Christ.

“We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” ().

Without the resurrection, there are no heavenly mansions, no resurrected eternity with the resurrected Christ.

“In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” ().

Without the resurrection, Jesus is no “resurrection and life” for mankind.

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?’” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no effective remembrance of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for us.

“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “’Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how He told you, whil e He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.’ And they remembered His words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the re st. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no Gospel and no Christian preaching.

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no one to bring us from death to life, and our sins stand against us.

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no hope of our glorious transformation on the Last Day.

“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself” ().

Without the resurrection, all suffering is meaningless; at best it is a mere punishment for sins.

“That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own” ().

Without the resurrection, I remain dead in my sins and have no certainty of God’s love in Christ for this life or the life to come.

“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” ().

Without the resurrection, I would merely follow Christ to death.

“But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ” ().

Without the resurrection, God sent no savior to

raise us up.

“And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by His power” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no belief, no salvation, no confession.

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” ().

Without the resurrection, there is only sin, no life.

If there is no resurrection, we have none of the promises to the fathers or to Christ. With it, all promises are ours.

“And as for the fact that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore, He says also in another psalm, “You will not let your Holy One see corrupt ion’” ().

Without the resurrection, there is no eternal life, indeed no Christian resurrection to life.

“Yet a little while and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live” (). Without the resurrection, there is no hope after death.

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live’” (). Without the resurrection, there is no Christian comfort in eternal life.

“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live” ().

Conclusion Dear friends, the resurrection is true and ours. And in the resurrection, we are gifted with everything we need in this life and in the church’s life. There is no problem in the church that the resurrection does not touch and provide the repentance, the gr ace, the means, the faith, the strength, the joy, the hope and the humility to address. “We are beggars: This is true” (Luther). And yet, as St. Paul wrote to a very troubled congregation in which he invested more time, blood, sweat and tears than any other: “So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours” (). We have challenges aplenty, but they all pale in comparison to the glorious bodily resurrection of Christ and what it delivers to us. Thank you for your attention and thank you for yo ur service to Christ and His blessed church. What Paul says applies to us all individually and together as church in this Synod. “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” ().

Amen.

Preface Grace and peace to you in our risen Lord, Jesus Christ. He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead that makes our labor in the Lord meaningful. Paul does not begin his exhortation in with “therefore” for nothing. He has just walked the Corinthians through the great chapter of the resurrection: Christ the firstfruits; the dead raised imperishable; death swallowed up in victory; the sting of death, which is sin; vanquished by the Lord Jesus and His cross. Only after this does Paul say, “Therefore.” Because Christ is risen, our labor i s not in vain. Because He is risen, the Word preached actually creates faith. Because He is risen, the Sacraments truly give what they promise. Because He is risen, this convention’s work, every careful resolution, every patient hour of debate, every colle gial conversation across the table; is taken up into His ongoing work for His church and for the world He is still in the business of saving. This is why we gather. This is why we labor. The risen Christ is in His Word, the speaking presence around every floor committee table this weekend. He has given us His Word, His Sacraments, His church. He has placed us in this Synod at this moment in hist ory. Our task is not to invent the church’s mission — that has already been given — but to receive it, steward it and pass it on to those who come after us. We do this together. We do it in the joyful confidence that because He lives, we shall live also, and that this labor is laying up treasure that endures.

We thank each of you for your willingness to give these days to the Synod’s work. Your congregations, your districts and our common life together as The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod are blessed by your service. We are grateful.

To the Floor Committees: A Word on the

Work Ahead We received significantly more on -time submissions this year (464 vs. 322 in 2023), resulting in 374 unique overtures for the Workbook (279 in 2023), many of them clearly and carefully labored over. As noted in the Workbook’s preface, a number of these overtures appear to have been assisted by artificial intelligence (AI). While the use of AI for some purposes can be very helpful, severa l overture submissions demonstrate that the technology unfortunately produces inaccuracies. We recommend careful reading as recommended in Scripture: “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (). A well -crafted resolution by a floor committee will often serve the body better than a hastily drafted overture whose underlying concern is genuine, but whose content is incomplete.

Floor committees draw from four sources: the overtures published in the Workbook ; the reports of officers, boards and commissions; comments received from allowable parties ([c]); and this report to you. Staff who are subject matter experts are present this weekend as a resource; please use them generously. Staff are there to assist but are not members of the committee. First Vice-President Peter Lange and the Office of the President have met with each committee chair and vice-chair, and the conve rsations have been candid and helpful. What follows are observations and counsel offered in that same spirit.

A new procedural tool: consent calendar and omnibus resolutions This convention introduces a Consent Calendar for resolutions alongside the long-standing omnibus resolutions for overtures. The distinction is important. Omnibus resolutions group similar overtures together into four categories: (A) Responsibility Assigned to Others, (B) Addressed by Previous Conventions, (C) Expressions of Encouragement and Gratitude, or (D) Declined. The Consent Calendar, by contrast, gathers floor committee-drafted resolutions that the committee anticipates will receive broad agreement without substantial debate and are likely to be adopted without amendment. The Consent Calendar is a helpful tool. A resolution placed on the Consent Calendar still carries the full weight of the Synod. At the same time, it preserves precious convention fl oor time for resolutions where discussion is most needed. We commend the prayerful and generous use of the Consent Calendar — not to limit people’s voices or the responsibility to carefully consider matters, but rather to allow time for other significant m atters to have sufficient time for review and debate often desired by the assembly.

A word on task forces Several previous conventions have appointed task forces in response to genuine needs, and good work has resulted. We have, however, learned by experience that task forces tend to multiply, can be costly, and sometimes produce results that are lesser than a well- charged standing committee or office would have produced in the same amount of time. Where a matter properly belongs to an existing board, commission or office of the Synod, we encourage the committees to direct the work there. Where a specific task force is needed, we say so plainly below.

A word on tone The theme of this convention is “Christ Is Risen Indeed.” Let this not be a slogan we sing on Sunday morning and then leave behind when we enter the committee rooms. Resolutions are confessions. When we adopt a resolution on church planting, we confess that the risen Christ still saves sinners. When we adopt a resolution on the Lord’s Supper, we confess that He is truly, bodily and graciously present in that Meal. When we adopt a resolution that bears witness to the inerrant Word, we confess that His Word i s living, active and trustworthy. Let our resolutions sound like the Gospel they confess, as they are clear in doctrine, charitable in spirit and hopeful in expectation. The world is watching, but more importantly, the angels rejoice when sinners gather in the name of Jesus and labor together for His kingdom. Let our work give them cause for rejoicing.

Committee 1:

Committee 1: National Witness Chair: Eric Johnson; Vice -Chair: Dien Taylor; Primary Staff: Michael Meyer We come to this committee’s work with great encouragement.

The Lord is doing something remarkable among us. Since 2022, adult confirmations have been running significantly above the long- term trend. Young people, especially young men, are finding their way to LCMS congregations, often by way of lcms.org and the podcasts of faithful pastors, looking for the authentic Word and the historic Divine Service. The fields are white for harvest, and the Lord of the harvest is providing both workers and the harvest itself. This committee’s work, we pray, will be a faithful response to His grace at work in our day.

With 33 overtures before this committee, 13 of them from the Board for National Mission (BNM), the work is substantial. We commend the discipline of asking, of each BNM overture, whether it: (a) proposes something genuinely new requiring the convention’s direction, (b) celebrates work already being faithfully done, or (c) requests convention approval for work the Office of National Mission (ONM) could properly undertake on its own. Often overtures in the second and third categories can be handled through the Consent Calendar or through a resolution of encouragement - and-thanksgiving that elevates the work without binding the body to additional action. Begin with a resolution that will be a clear win for the Synod, something unifying and forward-looking, and l et the remaining workflow from that good start. About 10 resolutions from this committee is a reasonable working target.

Toward strong resolutions

Church planting (Ov. 1 -06). This is an excellent overture,

well aligned with the Office of National Mission’s data on what has proven most fruitful: the preaching station and mother-daughter congregation model, along with a committed lay core and the support of a neighboring pastor. We have roughly 100 church plants that are either potential sites or are in various stages of the church planting process, and we believe a substantive resolution — reflecting the ONM data and specifically naming this model of c hurch planting — will give the Synod a clearer way forward than past program-based approaches to church planting.

Campus ministry (Ovs. 1-04 and 1 -05). Both overtures

address the same conviction: Campus ministry is among the most fruitful investments we can make. The committee may wish to combine the two overtures into a single substantive resolution restoring a full-time Campus Ministry coordinator at the Office of National Mission. We note the importance of carefully phrasing action that has a financial impact; the phrase “as designated funds are available” is both realistic and helpful for the resolves that involve new funding.

Apologetics (Ov. 1 -12). The overture is good, and the need

is real. We suggest the committee consider whether “encouraging” rather than “tasking” the Synod and her arms, educational institutions, auxiliaries and Recognized Service Organizations produces a stronger resolution and more accurately reflects our relationship to them. We also commend the committee to include the seminaries and universities to the apologetics conversation; they are natural homes for the deeper formation work that supports congregational apologetics.

Lutheran schools (Ovs. 1 -14 through 1 -19). Ov. 1 -17,

which commends and thanks God for our schools, could be strengthened by including specific data regarding statistical trends of school baptisms and enrollment. Additionally, the U.S. House of Representatives 1 Bill, also officially known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed by Congress in July 2025, provides a new tax credit opportunity, beginning in 2027, of up to $1,700 for donations to scholarship-granting organizations supporting Lutheran schools. We commend the committee to consult Chief Mission Officer Dan Galchutt regarding operationalizing this opportunity. Ov. 1-18 regarding educators and administrators, similarly, will be strengthened by current data and a brief note on continuing education options through the Concordia University System.

Schools’ curricula (Ov. 1 -15). The first resolve, as written,

requires Lutheran schools to use “only the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions” as curricular material. The intent of this overture is good, but the language is impractical and would not honor what our excellent Lutheran educ ators are doing with confessionally faithful curricula every day. We commend a more realistic revision that calls for curricular materials to be “in accord with LCMS doctrine.” We recommend the committee review the final whereas to consider rewording or removal.

Catechism 500th anniversary (Ovs. 1- 29 and 1 -30). The

500th anniversary of Luther’s Small Catechism arrives in 2029. We commend the committee to draft a substantive resolution launching Synodwide planning now, offering direction to Concordia Publishing House, the Office of National Mission and the Concor dia University System to develop resources that will permeate our homes, schools and congregations in the run-up to that anniversary.

Young people in the church (Ov. 1 -13). The overture cites

genuinely encouraging facts. We are reluctant, however, to recommend establishment of a task force on this matter. We commend the committee instead to ask the Office of National Mission to monitor these encouraging developments closely and to report regularly to the body through normal channels. The Spirit is at work; we want to walk alongside what He is doing, not over-program it.

All Nations Ministry (Ov. 1 -01). There are now 527

identified “All Nations” groups across the Synod. The committee may wish to highlight in this overture current fruits of our multilingual and multiethnic outreach efforts, including the new Spanish hymnal and Lutheran Heritage Foundation resources.

Synodwide conversation on decline (Ov. 1 -07). The

aspiration is worthy, but a broad Synodwide conversation involving “all entities” preparing “study materials” represents a heavy lift that has not, in our recent experience, produced commensurate fruit. We commend the committee to consider whether more action -oriented language — directing specific offices to bring concrete proposals to 2029 — would better serve the body.

Black Ministry (Ovs. 1-02 and 1-03). The overtures call for

Synod support of the upcoming celebration in 2027 of 150 years of Black Ministry within the LCMS. We commend a single, unified resolution that honors the legacy and affirms continued financial support consistent with prior conventio n actions.

Armed security in schools (Ov. 1-14). This overture is well

intended. However, legal questions surrounding the specific resolves require careful review with LCMS Legal before any time is spent drafting a proposed resolution.

Urban ministry (Ov. 1 -10). This overture recognizes the

challenges of urban ministry and calls for administrative assistance from the Office of National Mission that has financial implications. Coordination with Floor Committee 8 on Finance is necessary.

re:Vitality (Ov. 1 -08). The committee will note the third

whereas observes that fewer than 5% of congregations have used the program. A resolution that warmly commends and encourages broader use of this program would likely serve the Synod well.

Other matters

Web presence. The Lutheran Witness article outlining the

next triennium called for a stronger LCMS web presence with the primary purpose of directing seekers to local LCMS congregations. No overture before this committee addresses this directly, but the data — young adults finding congregations through lcms.org and Lutheran podcasts — is too significant to set aside. We commend the committee to consider drafting a resolution directing the Office of National Mission and LCMS Communications to develop a coordinated strategy and report progress to the Council of Presidents.

Lutheran Hour Ministries (LHM). An LCMS auxiliary

exists as an arm of the Synod for the extension of the mission and ministry of the Synod. LHM is a valued auxiliary that works alongside the LCMS in various areas of national and international mission and mercy efforts. We thank God for LHM’s over 100 years of sharing the Gospel, planting churches and showing mercy around the world. We recommend the committee consult with Chief Mission Officer Dan Galchutt to learn more of LHM’s efforts and then identify opportunities for enhanced alignment and collaboration. We recommend the committee consider proposing a resolution that engages the CMO along with an LHM representative to develop strategies and plans to enhance the relationship and stewardship of resources between the LCMS and LHM.

Deaf ministry. The LCMS officially adopted “Deaf

Missions” as a program of the Synod in 1896. We recommend the committee consider the 130th anniversary of LCMS deaf ministry celebrated in 2026 with a resolution of thanksgiving and encouragement to continue to support RSOs and others that continue to be involved in this outreach.

Committee 2: International Witness

Chair: Robert (Lee) Hagan; Vice-chair: Nathan Meador

Despite enormous geopolitical, financial and logistical pressures, the Lord continues to bless our international work. This has been an encouraging year for new missionary recruitment; financial support for our missionaries has been generous; and the Office of International Mission, in partnership with the Boards for International and National Mission, has done outstanding work. While the quantity of overtures assigned to this committee is modest, the quality and significance of the work being celebrated and considered is anything but. We commend the committee to draw from the Office of International Mission report and the counsel and experience of its leadership as it develops resolutions that celebrate what the Lord is accomplishing through us in many lang uages and lands.

Toward strong resolutions

FORO support and participation (Ov. 2 -01). The forums

of the church (FOROs) — where missionaries and members of partner churches gather to further the spread of the Gospel — have proven a fruitful model. The committee may wish to develop this overture into a resolution supporting FOROs synodwide; we encourage the committee to consult with the executive director of the Office of International Mission to obtain an update of current and developing FOROs and to understand the purposes and benefits the FORO mode l has produced in mission fields.

Adopt-a-Missionary (Ov. 2-02). The overture rightly

commends the Network -Supported Model, which is sound.

We invite the committee to clearly state that this overture encourages support directed toward missionaries serving through the Office of International Mission — including to Mission Central as an arm of LCMS Mission Advancement (not as a standalone fundraising entity) — rather than an independent organization funding and sending missionaries.

It would also be appropriate for the committee to note , which provides that the Board for International Mission (BIM) shall serve as the only sending agency for workers and funds, though RSOs and official mission societies of the Synod may send long-term workers overseas. The committee may consider enco uragement to congregations that believe they cannot afford to financially support a mission, reinforcing that even modest, sustained giving carries blessings back, not only to the missionary, but also to the giving congregation itself by establishing relationship with a missionary and the mission field.

International congregations and ecclesiastical supervision

(Ov. 2 -03). The committee is right to note the Synod has already directed this work. The current question is what concrete next step is timely. The matter of an “international circuit” for LCMS -related congregations not currently tethered to a U.S. district is a real one. Consultation with the executive director of the Office of International Mission and the secretary of the Synod will help. Two separate resolutions — one addressing international congregational supervision and another addressing missionary support — may better serve the Synod than a single combined resolve. The secretary of the Synod may offer guidance for developing bylaw amendments.

EIIT pastors and mission service (Ov. 2-04). The historical

pattern noted in the first whereas deserves examination. The committee will want to consult with the seminaries and the Office of International Mission regarding the actual obstacles to EIIT pastors’ service overseas — which include the reality that many of our international workers serve as theological educators, a role for which the EIIT program is not designed, since EIIT pastors receive only a fraction of the residential coursework.

Protection of divine calls for missionaries (Ov. 2-05). This

overture, while framed generically, addresses a specific recent situation that remains tender. We commend the committee to handle the matter with great care and balance. The doctrine of the divine call is essential to the Synod’s confession; the practical realities of mission deployment are also genuine. The Board for International Mission’s perspective deserves a careful hearing alongside the concerns expressed in the overture.

International schools (Ov. 2-07). The 60th anniversary of

LCMS international schools in Asia is a genuine cause for thanksgiving. The committee should be aware, however, that the situation with Hong Kong International School and its association continues to develop and includes matters before LCMS Legal. The resolutions should celebrate the international school’s work without entering into that pending matter.

Committee 3: Mercy

Chair: John Pingel; Vice-Chair: Kevin Wilson

This committee’s work touches both mercy outward — into the world the risen Christ still loves — and mercy inward — toward the workers and families who pour themselves out for His sake among us. With eight overtures before it, the committee’s work is more measured in volume than several others, but no less weighty.

A pause to give thanks Before turning to specific resolutions, this committee will help us take a moment in convention to give thanks for two decades of mercy work — from Project 24 and its child-sponsorship program, to relief efforts following the 2004 Asian tsunami and Hurrica ne Katrina in 2005, through a partnership with a Lutheran school in South Africa, to the development of the Lutheran Early Response Team (LERT) volunteer network, to the countless church workers supported through Soldiers and Veterans of the Cross, through the millions of dollars granted to support pro-life efforts, and in a hundred other places where the Synod has been quietly faithful. We do not list these labors as accomplishments; we count them as evidence that the risen Christ has used the LCMS far beyond what we deserved or could have engineered. To Him be the glory.

Toward strong resolutions

Adoption and foster care (Ov. 3 -01). The overture rightly

commends the Recognized Service Organizations (RSO) that provide adoption and foster -care services. We commend the committee to add concrete data regarding the number of LCMS RSOs currently providing adoption and foster care, and the number of RSOs that have either voluntarily withdrawn or have had status removed in recent years. The recent reduction in RSOs providing adoption and foster care services make our remaining RSOs that continue to provide these critical services more important, not less.

Life Ministry (Ov. 3 -02). The Synod’s Life Ministry,

working with congregations and supported through the Million Dollar Life Match, has assisted approximately 640,000 mothers and babies in the last triennium (it was later clarified that this was for the period 2022 –2026). That is an astonishing fruit of mercy. The committee may wish to ensure the resolution gives appropriate recognition to what is already being done by the Office of the President and the Office of National Mission, including participation in state life marches and the March for Life in Washington, D.C., and the broad participation in pro-life efforts across the Synod, before encouraging additional civic and ecumenical engagement.

Disaster Response (Ov. 3-03). This is an excellent overture,

but the committee can strengthen it by including concrete data regarding the response to recent disasters, volunteer participation, volunteer service hours given and financial assistance provided. The third-from -last resolve calls for every district to appoint a district disaster response coordinator; the committee should identify which districts already have a coordinator and which do not and share those facts. Mention of partner organizations like Lutheran Church Charities and Orphan Grain Train will further strengthen the resolution.

Human care and our immigrant neighbors (Ov. 3-04). The

overture references our immigrant and refugee neighbors three times, making care for our immigrant neighbors a subtle subtheme. We commend a two -kingdoms framework to this matter: upholding the Christian citizen’s vocational duty to support orderly immigration and the rule of law, while never forgetting the vocational call of mercy toward every neighbor God places before us in need, regardless of legal status. The Synod’s mercy footprint is enormous, including Recognized Service Organizations, congregational ministries and partnership efforts, and the resolution will be stronger for naming that breadth.

District immigration commission (Ov. 3-05). This overture

primarily addresses district structure rather than Synod action, which makes it unusual to be taken up by the Synod convention. The committee should be aware that Lutheran Social Services of New York, mentioned in the overture, is currently in the RSO renewal process, with matters relating to its earlier board composition and policy stance being in active dialogue with our office and the Atlantic District.

Throughout these discussions and the renewal process, the

Synod’s standards remain firm and clear.

Worker wellness (Ov. 3 -06). This is a strong overture and

aligns well with the strategic plan distributed to district presidents. The fifth whereas notes that approximately 20% of rostered workers are not enrolled in Concordia Plans; this is a real concern the resolution can helpfully address. Kevin Herweck, Concordia Plans (CPS) president, can provide useful data and talking points regarding the complex nature of this issue and available CPS resources. The committee may also wish to highlight the Synod’s financial support of DOXOLOGY retreats, Shepherd’s Canyon Retreat and Soldiers of the Cross, as many within the Synod are unaware of the extent to which these ministries are being supported.

Telehealth counseling (Ov. 03-07). This overture addresses

a real and growing need. The committee should be aware of state-by-state licensing complexities for cross-state telehealth providers. The resolution should encourage development of these services with these legal and regulatory realities in view.

Leadership and worker wellness (Ov. 3 -08). The overture

correctly identifies that the term “leadership” carries different meanings in various settings (business, church, etc.). We encourage the committee to consider what the growing body of research into effective leadership can contribute to our support of the Office of the Holy Ministry. Leadership is one aspect of wellness, albeit an important one.

Mental health (Report R60). The CTCR’s end -of-life

document (Report R62.1) and the Mental Health Task Force report (Report R60) are both exceptional resources speaking into the actual situations people are facing in daily life. We commend the committee to draft a resolution adopting the key recommendations of the Mental Health Task Force report (Report R60) and warmly commend the end-of-life document to pastors, congregations and Lutheran health care workers.

Committee 4:

Committee 4: Life Together Chair: Christopher Esget; Vice -Chair: Lucas Woodford; Primary Staff: Rick Serina This committee carries a substantial overture load that clusters helpfully into seven groupings: mission emphasis and priorities; race and Christian Nationalism; the question of a new hymnal; worship practices and orders of service; Recognized Service Organizations; artificial intelligence and online technology; and the overtures concerning Charlie Kirk. Presenting eight to 10 resolutions to the assembly, supplemented by appropriate use of the Consent Calendar, is a reasonable goal.

Mission emphasis and priorities (Ovs. 4-01 through 4-12) The Boards for National and International Mission have jointly proposed a renewed mission and ministry emphasis under the theme “Tell the Next Generation,” supported by the convention offering and a $500,000 challenge grant. We commend this work. A note for the committee’s precision: the term used in the bylaws is “mission and ministry emphases” (in the plural). Additionally, the term “mission priorities” does not appear in the Bylaws as such. The plural form provides flexibility that the body has historically valued.

The committee may wish to follow the BNM/BIM joint recommendation closely. If “Tell the Next Generation” is adopted as the emphasis through Ov. 4 -02, then Ov. 4- 01, which sunsets prior emphases, could be turned into a resolution and placed on t he Consent Calendar. We recommend the committee make use of the helpful list in the first whereas of Ov. 4 -11 of relevant bylaw provisions on this issue.

Race, Christian Nationalism and Antisemitism (Ovs. 4-13 through 4-22) This grouping contains genuinely important material the Synod must address with both clarity and pastoral care. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has indicated a willingness to take up a written treatment of Christian Nationalism; we commend the CTCR for their anticipated work on this subject. We suggest the committee combine the strongest material from the Michigan, Rocky Mountain and other district overtures into a unified resolution that: (a) condemns racism, antisemitism and the specific aberrations associated with “Christian Nationalism,” especially in its more extreme online expressions; (b) directs the CTCR to elaborate in a forthcoming document; and (c) references Luther’s unfortunate later writings about the Jewish people, which the Synod has previously addressed in convention (1983 Res. 1-20 and Res. 3 -09). Material best suited for encouragement or reaffirmation, and unlikely to generate controversy or significant debate, may be appropriate for the Consent Calendar. The concern raised in Ov. 4-17, however, deserves a substantive response, rather than omnibus disposition.

Worship and hymnal questions (Ovs. 4-23 through 4-31) Regarding the question of beginning plans for the development of a new hymnal or a hymnal supplement as called for in Ov. 4- 24 and Ov. 4-25, the committee is commended to carefully consider this matter, seeking consultation with Chief Financial Officer Nathan Haak and other subject matter experts to determine the best course forward to address the availability of new music not currently in Lutheran Service Book (LSB). Ovs. 4-23, 4-24 and 4-25 could be consolidated into a single resolution, particularly if proposed bylaw changes in Ov. 4-23 are included. We commend these proposed bylaw changes to the committee’s careful consideration as they would reestablish the Commission on Worship, which is the natural place for work on a new hymnal to be coordinated, and provide direction for the development, adoption, and revision of agenda and hymnbooks adopted by the Synod in convention. Ov. 4-26 brings concerns regarding the worship materials used at the National Youth Gathering (NYG), concerning which the committee is commended to consult Rev. Sean Daenzer, director of LCMS Worship, for current information regarding NYG worship materials and plans.

Regarding (Ov. 4-29) challenging some reverences of Holy

Communion and Baptism, 2016 Res. 4-04A remains the Synod’s clear and irenic statement appealing, in evangelical freedom to the congregations, to retain the historic order of the Divine Service. The committee may wish to direct district presidents to engage congregations not currently using the hymnal, not in a spirit of policing, but of brotherly conversation about what the Synod has confessed together. The first resolve of Ov. 4-29 contains a few factual and liturgical inaccuracies that the committee will want to address.

Recognized Service Organizations (Ov. 4-32 through 4-35) Over the past five years, 115 organizations have been granted RSO status; in the same period, 77 have been terminated, denied or withdrawn. Of those 77, 49 organizations did not represent LCMS doctrine and practice adequately and RSO status was ended. It i s important the committee understand that reviewing new RSO applications and the renewal of current RSOs is not a simple paperwork process along with a quick on-site visit or phone call. Rather, it is complex work dealing with multiple stakeholders, various organizational structures, and a variety of unique situations and contexts. This work is best done through ongoing relationships and in-person dialogue that is respectful of all parties resulting in working together toward a common mission. We commend a resolution that affirms the work done, encourages continued rigor, and gives thanks for the 326 RSOs currently faithfully extending the Synod’s mercy, witness and educational mission.

Online technology and artificial intelligence

Report R62.6, the CTCR’s study document Online Technology in the Church: Study Materials (2024), is assigned to this committee for consideration. We strongly recommend this document to congregations and pastors, especially its guidance on appropriate and inappropriate uses of digital tools, including artificial intelligence (AI). The Workbook preface notes the concerns of AI in overture composition in this convention cycle. A well -drafted resolution could help congregations and pastors to carefully consider the benefits and challenges with the use of this technology in both communications and teaching in our schools and congregations.

Overtures concerning Charlie Kirk (Ovs. 4-53 through 4-55) Three overtures seek Synod recognition or commendation of Charles James Kirk as a faithful Christian witness. The Synod has not historically adjudicated the personal faith of public figures from the convention floor, and we are reluctant to begin that practice now. However, we understand there is a valid pastoral concern beneath these overtures — a desire to honor Christian public witness in our time — that may better be served by a resolution thanking God for all those, named and unnamed, whose Christian witness in the public square has come at personal cost. We commend that approach to the committee’s prayerful consideration.

Other matters before the committee

The Koinonia Project, developed from previous convention- adopted resolutions calling for greater harmony throughout the Synod, focused on and grounded in the concordia of the Augsburg Confession, has been a useful initiative to foster theological discussions to strengthen our joint witness and bring greater unity to our doctrine and practice. This project is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach to theological discussions, but is detailed in what it means, the elements to include, following the framework of the Formula of Concord with its affirmations and rejections. We encourage the committee to consider encouragement of renewed use of the Koinonia Project as originally defined and described. (See lcms.org/about/leadership/president/koinonia-project) Committee 5: Theology and Church Relations Chair: Brian Saunders; Vice-Chair: Ryan Wendt; Primary Staff: Joel Lehenbauer and Jonathan Shaw The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has been remarkably productive during this triennium. It has published 13 documents and opinions, which are commended to this committee. Church Relations (CR) has engaged most of the 103 LCMS sister, associate and other churches, increasing its visitations, fellowship dialogues, theological engagements, regional fora and theological education. A target of approximately 12 resolutions from this committee — or fewer — will allow each resolution to be substantial and well-considered. Forty-four overtures are before the committee, including nine concerning relations with sister churches, one proposing fellowship recognition with the Evangelical Christian Lutheran Church of Bolivia (ICEL), one supporting future recognition of fellowship with Lutheran Mission – Australia (LM- A), and seven raising concerns regarding ecclesiastical relations.

New fellowship recognition

ICEL (Ov. 5 -01). Fellowship dialogue with the ICEL has

proceeded exceptionally well. The CTCR has completed its work, the bylaw process has been followed, and convention ratification is the appropriate and joyful next step.

LM-A (Ov. 5-02). As noted under Committee 2, fellowship

recognition is being deferred pending adoption of LM -A’s constitution in August 2026. We recommend the committee consider drafting a resolution expressing the theological agreement we share and the Synod’s commitment to formally ratify fellowship upon LM-A’s adoption of their constitution.

A recommended resolution expresses theological agreement and the Synod’s commitment to ratify fellowship upon LM - A’s adoption of its constitution.

Concerns about sister churches (Ovs. 5-03 through

5-09)

SELC (Siberia) (Ovs. 5 -03 through 5 -05). LCMS CR has

held three theological dialogues with SELC leadership on the questions of apostolic succession “of the hand” and episcopacy. These are genuine concerns, but SELC leadership has apologized for earlier offenses. This is deeply appreciated. We wi ll move forward in the Spirit of Christ with our dear brothers and sisters. Dr. Jonathan Shaw can provide context and more details.

ELCK (Kenya) and the LWF (Ov. 5 -06). The ELCK has

officially withdrawn from the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) by concurrent unanimous votes of the ELCK Church Council (April 9, 2026) and its General Assembly (April 10, 2026). The ELCK has notified the LWF General Secretary of its withdrawa l. We praise God for the ELCK’s act of confessional conviction. We recommend the committee consult with Dr. Shaw, director of Church Relations in the Office of the President, closely on this matter.

ELCL (Latvia) (Ov. 5 -07). LCMS CR has conducted

extensive theological discussions with the ELCL on the doctrine and practice of church fellowship. Discussions remain cordial and hopeful. Dr. Shaw can provide context and more details.

SELK (Germany) (Ov. 5 -08). The Selbständige

Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche currently has a vocal minority advocating women’s ordination and two women serving in a Pfarreferentin role with preaching permitted in the absence of a pastor. Encouraging developments include the most recent SELK conference soundly rejecting women’s ordination and the SELK seminary calling another confessional Lutheran professor. Drs. Shaw and Lehenbauer can provide context and more details.

AALC (USA) (Ov. 5 -09). A March 2025 AALC -LCMS

discussion was positive and very cordial. There were a couple of outstanding issues. One involved a case of a pastor removed for cause who joined the AALC roster. We view the matter differently. Those present at this meeting (Harris on, Lange, Shaw, Lehenbauer, Frese, Serina and Krikava) are all quite dumbfounded at recent AALC assertions. We’ll do our best to “Back up and Push” as the old bluegrass song says.

Pray for us. God works good through trials and crosse s, and we thought and still hope we are on the verge of a better relationship.

LWF departures. Significant work has been done with

LCMS sister churches still in the LWF. Since the 2023 LCMS convention resolution that urged withdrawal from the LWF, two LCMS sister churches (ELCG [Ghana] and ELCK [Kenya]) have left the LWF, and others are in the proc ess of leaving. LCMS CR continues theological education and patient engagement in this matter.

ELS and WELS conversations. For the first time in over six

decades, an LCMS president has been welcomed in convention by both the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

Since 2012, leaders of the ELS, WELS and LCMS have met annually for joyful conversations focused on understanding nuanced doctrinal distinctions within their shared theological heritage. An ELS -WELS-LCMS free conference is planned for June 2027.

Closed Communion (Ovs. 5-16 through 5-18)

The Synod has addressed the practice of closed Communion in successive conventions, with increasingly strong support from the voting delegates (83% in 2019, 89% in 2023). This trajectory is both encouraging and worthy of reinforcing. We commend a resolutio n referencing the many CTCR reports on the Lord’s Supper that warmly and biblically articulates closed Communion as the loving and faithful practice it is.

Women as lectors and related matters (Ovs. 5-26 through 5-30) Four overtures address whether women may serve as lectors or readers of Scripture in worship. This has been addressed in CTCR Report R62.8, Unity in Doctrine, Uniformity and Variety in Practice, and R62.11, which is the CTCR response to the president’s question on lay reading of sermons and conduct of worship in the absence of a pastor. We urge the committee to use these documents as the primary basis for any resolution in this area. Currently, the CTCR’s 1989 report on women in the church recommends agains t lay reading of the Scriptures in the Divine Service, while the Synod has not, so far as I know, forbidden the practice. We urge thoughtfulness and care on these issues.

Other significant matters

Sister churches: a recommended terminology change.

LCMS Church Relations, in coordination with the staff of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, has requested that the Handbook’s nomenclature for church bodies in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod be changed from “partner church” to “sister church.” The change is terminological rather than substantive, and it will bring helpful clarity to a real source of confusion in our ecumenical relationships, including occasional misunderstandings of fellowship status. There are 24 occurrences of “partner church” or “partner churches” in the current Handbook, with two additional occurrences of “partners” in that warrant clarification. We recommend that the committee draft a resolution making these changes and direct the committee to consult with Dr.

Jonathan Shaw, director of Church Relations, on the

particulars.

Clarifying Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2 (b) on fellowship recognition.

LCMS Church Relations, in coordination with the staff of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, has identified two phrases in that could mislead the reader on matters of real theological consequence: the threefold use of “formal fellowship” (which implies an informal fellowship category the Synod does not recognize), and the threefold reference to “the approval of the commission” (which suggests the CTCR approves fellowship, when in fact it recommends recognition to the Synod). The proposed changes are terminological rather than substantive but serve our common confession of what church fellowship is and how the Synod comes to recognize it. We recommend that the committee draft a resolution making these changes. We also urge the committee to consult with Dr. Jonathan Shaw, director of Church Relations, on the particulars.

Documenting the director of Church Relations in the

Bylaws. An overture (Ov. 5 -42) is before the committee to amend to document in our governing documents what has been the practical reality of the Synod’s ecumenical work since 2008: that the president’s director of Church Relations ordinarily serves as his representative for ecclesiastical relations with other chur ch bodies. The amendment is descriptive rather than substantive and preserves the president’s full discretion as the Synod’s chief ecumenical officer. We commend the matter to the committee’s consideration and urge the committee to consult with Dr. Jonathan Shaw on the particulars and on the work of the Office of Church Relations, which today supports our engagement with 104 church bodies worldwide.

Eternal functional subordination (Ov. 5 -37). This is a

genuine theological discussion presently occurring in international Lutheran circles. We recommend a resolution or referral to the CTCR for substantive study and report.

Six-day creation (Ov. 5-10), eschatology (Ov. 5- 15), in

vitro (Ovs. 5-19 through 5-21) and organ donation (Ov. 5- 23). The Synod has spoken to several of these matters in previous conventions; others involve developing information and resources, encouraging actions and further study and prayerful consideration of medical and pastoral situations. Where the Synod’s position is well established, a brief resolution reaffirming that position or an Omnibus B referral is likely sufficient. Where there is no such position, proposing further study may be an appropriate path for the committee to consider.

Women’s suffrage in the church (Ovs. 5-31 through 5-34).

The Synod has spoken to this matter repeatedly over many decades. We commend the committee to consider omnibus referral rather than reopening a settled question on the convention floor, which would consume time and energy with little prospect of new understanding.

COVID-19 response (Ovs. 5-24 and 5-25). Some aspects of

the church’s response to the pandemic were handled imperfectly; others were handled well under extraordinary circumstances. A sweeping convention resolution of self - condemnation is, in our judgment, neither historically accurate nor pastorally fruitful. We commend the committee to consider whether a narrower, more measured statement might better serve the Synod — or whether the matter is best left to the Lord’s grace and the wisdom He continues to teach us through hindsight. “We are beggars: This is true.”

Declaration concerning the Center for Missional and

Pastoral Leadership (Ovs. 5 -38 and 5-39). A formal declaration of an organization as a “heterodox tract and mission society” from the convention floor is a high- threshold action requiring careful, sustained theological review. As this is an ecclesiastical supervision issue, we recommend referral t o the president of the Synod and the Council of Presidents for study and discussion. We further encourage the committee to consult with the secretary of the Synod regarding the definition of “heterodox tract and mission society.”

CTCR documents broadly. Reports R62.1 through R62.13

represent extraordinary work. We recommend the committee consider how it might apply, cite or commend these documents in its resolutions or to draft a resolution commending them collectively to the body, with specific resolves naming the most pastorally urgent for congregational and pastoral study — particularly R62.9 Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper , R62.10 Deacons, Evangelists and the Office of the Holy Ministry in the New Testament , R62.7 A Theology and Philosophy of Lutheran Education, and R62.11 President of Synod Request for Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermon and Conduct of Worship in the Absence of a Pastor.

Committee 6:

Committee 6: Pastoral Ministry and Seminaries Chair: Scott Murray; Vice -Chair: John Hill; Primary Staff: James Baneck This is the most heavily loaded committee with 88 overtures clustering into approximately 24 sub-topics. The committee’s task is genuinely demanding, and we are confident in the chair and vice- chair God has given the Synod for this work. We recommend the committee focus on five or six core topics, proposing resolutions on those topics that can win a strong two -thirds majority on the convention floor. Resolutions adopted at high percentages, with a super majority, will serve the Synod’s unity in ways that narrowly divided resolutions cannot.

The fundamental conviction undergirding this report’s counsel is that residential seminary formation at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, and Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, remains the primary and preferred path to the Office of the Holy Ministry in our Synod, as stated clearly in previous Synod resolutions. Both seminaries are financially healthy, theologically sound and in increasingly fruitful partnership with our international mission work. We have also been blessed by Specific Ministry Pastor s (SMP) and other alternate-route pastors serving in contexts where residential graduates have not been available. Both convictions can be held together. The challenge is articulating the proper relationship between them in a way that strengthens, rather t han fractures, our common life together.

Online and competency-based M.Div. proposals (Ovs. 6-25 through 6-44) Twenty overtures cluster in this area. We commend the committee’s careful theological reflection. Several overtures propose what is functionally a model of theological conferences renamed as “Koinonia”; the Koinonia Project as originally established was ab out theological study, not pastoral formation reform. The processes outlined in several of these overtures are unwieldy and would not, in our judgment, serve the Synod well. Competency-based M.Div. approaches, well -intentioned as they are, raise serious co ncerns about the formational dimension of seminary education that cannot be reduced to demonstrated competency. We commend the committee to draft a resolution that warmly affirms residential seminary education as the Synod’s primary path while acknowledging the genuine pastoral need in some contexts that these conversations seek to address.

Specific Ministry Pastor (SMP) program (Ovs. 6-51 through 6-63) Thirteen overtures address SMP admission, appropriate uses and supervision. 2013 Res. 5- 04B resolved that “district presidents not approve specific ministry sites which could reasonably be expected to support a general pastor or sites where a minister of religion—commissioned could fulfill the duties.” That 2013 resolution passed with an 82% majority and affirmed residential seminary education as the “premier” path. This remains the Synod’s posture. Concordia Seminary reports that, at the current rate of matriculation, by 2050 over half of its graduates will be SMP. Furthermore, SMP candidates have received no education in Greek and complete only about one -third of the M.Div. coursework. We commend the committee to chart a realistic course — one that affirms SMP’s legitimate role, strengthens supervision and operationalizes the spirit of 2013 Res. 5 -04B without freezing or unraveling the SMP program.

The Pastoral Formation Committee (PFC) (Ovs. 6- 64 through 6-71) Eight overtures address the PFC — its merits, composition, charge and future. The PFC has done good work and represents the current iteration of what was historically the Board for Pastoral Education and, before recent years, the SMP committee. Ov. 6-69’s second whereas candidly acknowledges that “the current system of graduate level residential training … continues to struggle to provide both the sorts and the numbers of pastors that the congregations of the Synod desire.” This is honest, but it also reveals the underlying tension: Some advocate for not merely more pastors, but a different “kind” of pastoral formation.

Routes to ordination outside Synod-approved pathways (Ovs. 6-14 through 6-24) Eleven overtures address irregular routes to ordination currently operating in some districts and congregations.

paragraphs 1 and 3, and Article VI on unionism, are the relevant confessional and constitutional anchors. We note with interest that no overture before the convention supports the current irregular routes directly — a meaningful signal of where the Synod’s conscience rests. The challenge is operational: Who knows precisely which congregations are sending men through these routes, and how should the Synod respond? A definition from the secretary of the Synod of what constitutes a violation of the Constitution’s service requirements would be helpful. We commend the committee to draft a resolution that, in clear and unambiguo us terms, calls upon districts and congregations to honor the Synod’s established pathways while also inviting brothers and sisters with genuine concerns about access to pastoral care for their congregations to bring those concerns through proper channels for our common consideration and response.

Other matters

Pastoral colloquy bylaws. We commend Ov. 6-11 from the

Colloquy Committee for the Pastoral Ministry, which would reinsert, back into Synod Bylaws, much that was in the Bylaws for some 60 years but was then transferred from the Bylaws into policy in 2010. This restoration would provide for greater stability and accessibility of colloquy requirements, as explained in the whereases.

Assignment of initial calls for pastors. Synod Bylaws

designate the Council of Presidents (COP) as the Board of Assignments (2.5.2, etc.). The Bylaws also speak of seminary “placement officers” (2.9.2 [a]) and “placement policies” (3.10.5.7.10 [h]). In recent years, discussion has arisen regarding the complementary roles of the COP and seminary placement offices in the assignment of first calls for pastors.

We suggest that Floor Committee 6 consider whether and

how it might assist in bringing clarity to the question.

Set Apart to Serve. Enrollment numbers at our universities

and seminaries are climbing. All 35 districts have adopted Set Apart to Serve . We commend a resolution of thanksgiving and continued encouragement drawing on Ovs. 6- 76, 6-77 and 6-78.

Worker wellness in the ministerium. We recommend

coordinating with Floor Committee 3 on Mercy on these matters. Ovs. 6 -79 (support for bi -vocational and co - vocational pastors), 6- 82 and 6- 83 (sabbatical policies for church workers) acknowledge concrete matters worthy of the committee’s attention.

Report R62.10 (Deacons, Evangelists and the OHM). This

CTCR document provides the proper theological framework for understanding the breadth of ministries in the New Testament and their relationship to the pastoral office. We commend the committee to ground any resolution touching on diaconal or evangelist roles outlined in this document.

Committee 7:

Committee 7: University Education Chair: Brady Finnern; Vice-Chair: Rick Stuckwisch; Primary Staff: Jamison Hardy The past decade brought real challenges to the Concordia University System (CUS). Ambiguity and advocacy of views contrary to Scripture had gained footholds at several institutions, and the reduction of Concordia University Ann Arbor and now the sale of th e south campus is painful. The 2023 governance reform, developed in close partnership with the university presidents, has begun to bear good fruit. We are grateful for the leadership of the Concordia University System (CUS) Board, the university presidents, and the dedicated regents and faculty across our institutions. With 29 overtures concentrated in three main areas — prior approval (11), changing the CUS to a commission (3), and defining Lutheran identity (4) — the committee’s focus is clear.

The CUS structure question (Ovs. 7-01 through 7- 03) Ov. 7-01 proposes converting the CUS into the Commission for University Education. The university presidents all would like more time to consider this issue. The 2023 governance structure is less than three years old and is showing positive results. We commend the committee to refer this matter to the CUS Board and the LCMS Board of Directors for careful study over the next triennium, with a recommendation to the 2029 convention, if appropriate. Stability serves our universities now. The parties concerned will not be shy about legal and other concerns on both sides of the issue.

Lutheran identity at our universities (Ovs. 7-04 through 7-07) These overtures touch the heart of the matter. We commend the committee to draw on 2016 Res. 4 -04A (which named the historic order for Divine Service and called for its retention) and the Lutheran Identity and Mission Outcome Standards (LIMOS) as developed by the CUS and used in the visitation process. We urge the committee to strengthen the LIMOS by adding clear scriptural and confessional references and definitions where it is most needed. Regarding Ov. 7-06 concerning worship practices at CUS schools: The argument that university chapel practices should mirror the diversity of practice across the Synod is not theologically sound; the universities should teach and demonstrate the best of Book of Concord Lutheran practice, which includes broad freedom. They are formative institutions, not merely representative ones.

The prior approval process (Ovs. 7-14 through 7- 24) The prior approval process has a long history, and 11 overtures engage this important process. We commend the committee to draft a resolution that: recognizes the significant benefits the prior approval process has produced (including much stronger theological faculties); explains the process clearly for the body’s understanding; notes that the CUS has published the process on its website; and acknowledges that the panel may be as transparent with candidates as is responsibly possible. The Office of the Pre sident’s ecclesiastical supervision responsibility is the proper anchor for this process and should be affirmed. It is the president of the Synod who has ecclesiastical supervision of the faculties.

Concordia University Wisconsin and Ann Arbor (CUWAA) We have provided an account of the Ann Arbor situation in Part 1 of the President’s Report. Here let me just assert that there are basically two parties in the conflict. They pretty much agreed on the financial challenge that CUW and the AA campus faced. One party was convinced that given time the programs of the newer north campus in Ann Arbor would grow to cover the costs incurred largely at the south campus. The other party believed that after a decade of effort, yearly deficits were beginning to jeopardize the entire CUWAA operation. The pain in the Michigan District is real. We’ve been working at this with disappointed results for a year and a half. The Synod does not control what a board of regents is given to do by the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws. Both parties are committee to the north campus. We commend a pastoral resolution — developed in conversation with the LCMS Board of Directors and the CUS — that gives thanks for Ann Arbor’s history, acknowledges the grief of its closure, affirms the integ rity of those who labored over the decision, expresses gratitude for the Michigan District’s continued engagement, and asks for the Lord’s healing. Ovs. 7-27, 7-28 and 7 -29 may be folded into such a resolution. The third resolve of Ov. 7-11 calling for full transparency of any course of action being considered is well -intentioned but raises real legal complexities about what an institution under financial pressure can and cannot share. It would be appropriate to refer this overture to the CUS Board and the LCMS Board of Directors. Michigan District President David Davis’ recent message urging forgiveness should be commended. The hope of future church work programs would be a welcome addition to the resolution. God help us all.

Other matters

Encouragement of financial support for the CUS (Ov. 7-

08). This overture is a good example of a matter that is to be supported by a large majority of voting delegates, and thus it is a good candidate for the Consent Calendar. The committee may consult with Chief Financial Officer Nathan Haak and LCMS Mission Advancement on the phrasing of the second- to-last resolve regarding where financial support can be best directed.

Bylaw 3.6.6.1 amendment (Ov. 7- 09). The overture

proposes that the CUS Board — rather than the convention — be empowered to create, revise or discontinue commissioned ministry programs of study. The CUS argument (that three-year convention cycles are too slow for university adaptation) is r eal; the concern (that major commissioned ministry decisions could occur without convention voice) is also real. Reference to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) Opinion 25- 3072 on the Director of Family Life M inistry is relevant. The committee may wish to identify a balanced clarification.

Luther Classical College (LCC) (Ov. 7 -25). LCC is an

independent institution with a sincere confessional commitment. I like what they are trying to do. The Synod has bylaws governing the process by which a new college may come into the LCMS. The universities have gone through a great deal of change and increased accountability across the board. The CUS visitations of our Concordias are rigorous.

There is concern that the benefits of Synod recognition without full Synod accountability (Synod election of regents, etc.) is problematic. I urge the floor committee to hear all sides on the issue before making any firm decisions. Referral to the LCMS Board of Directors and the CUS is an option.

Lord have mercy upon us.

Counselor colloquy (Ov. 7 -12). Significant work remains

before a Director of Family Life Ministry (DFLM) colloquy program can be ready to receive applicants; there are CCM and CUS considerations regarding whether the proper path is a new commissioned ministry category rather than use of the DFLM track. Referral to the Colloquy Committee for Commissioned Ministry and the CUS is recommended.

CUNE regent election change (Ov. 7 -13). Any proposed

resolution that removes Synod election authority from a board of regents warrants particular caution. We recommend the committee consult with the CCM and the secretary of the Synod on this matter.

Thanksgiving for the successful implementation of a new

Concordia University System governance model. We recommend that the committee consider a resolution of thanksgiving for the work of both the 2019 and 2023 Floor Committee 7 that successfully set in motion the outstanding work, goodwill, collaboration and partnership demonstrated in this triennium by the university presidents, leadership, faculty and students, the CUS staff and board of directors, and many others involved in all the blessings that have come from this effort.

Committee 8:

Committee 8: Finance Chair:

Committee 8: Finance Chair: Roger Paavola; Vice-Chair: James Rockey; Primary Staff: Nathan Haak The Synod is, by God’s gracious provision, in a financial position as healthy as we have known in some 40 years.

Approximately 78 cents of every dollar contributed goes directly to program ministry efforts. The annual unrestricted operating support from district plates to Synod, Inc. totals about $12 million. These are not vanity figures; they reflect the generosity of the Synod’s people and the careful stewardship of those managing these resources. Eighteen overtures cluster into four larger topics and five standalone matters.

Concordia Plan Services authority (Ovs. 8-01 and 8-02) Ov. 8-01, submitted by the Concordia Plan Services Board of Directors, is more expansive than Ov. 8-02, submitted by the LCMS Board of Directors. The latter is narrowly focused on the new Concordia Risk Solutions entity providing property and casualty insurance services. We support adding risk management to CPS’s authority. The broader scope of Ov. 8-01, with its proposed amendment to wording to include “but not limited to” language, raises legitimate legal questions. We recommend the committee consult with the secretary of the Synod or the CCM and with LCMS Legal on the implications of the proposed bylaw change.

CPS services beyond LCMS membership (Ovs. 8- 04 and 8-05) Two overtures from district boards of directors propose that CPS be empowered to offer services to non-LCMS Lutheran bodies. The argument from financial stability is real. The concern about pressure to add non-LCMS members to the CPS Board of Directors is also real. The Council of Presidents has discussed the current CPS exit fees and the broader question of long-term sustainability of the plan. allows for national inter -Lutheran entities to be “employers” under CPS. Interestingly, neither overture proposes bylaw language. We recommend the committee refer the matter to the LCMS Board of Directors.

Free access to Concordia Publishing House (CPH) resources (Ovs. 8-09 through 8-14) Six overtures address access to CPH resources. The first four are largely shared text concerning the new edition of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Ov. 8-12 is the most substantive of the four, acknowledging CPH’s recent action in placing the Book of Concord text on its website. Ovs. 8 -13 and 8 -14 are broader, with mission-work implications. The committee should note the seventh whereas of Ov. 8 -13 makes an unsupported assertion about copyright costs discouraging missionary translation; that assertion warrants substantiation before being included in a resolution. We commend the committee to turn these overtures around by asking CPH to respond directly with current facts about mission accessibility, low-cost availability of Rev. Peter Bender’s materials, the Office of the President’s subsidy of CPH shipping for missionaries, and CPH’s overall financial sustainability. A resolution that warmly commends CPH for its faithful stewardship and continues to invite continued mission accessibility is the right path.

LCMS, Inc. legal expense reporting (Ovs. 8-16 through 8-18) Three overtures address transparency around legal costs related to the HotChalk lawsuit, the Concordia University Texas (CTX) matter, and the Hong Kong International School (HKIS) association situation. The committee must consult with LCMS Legal Counsel prior to addressing these matters. The committee may determine, with legal counsel, additional reporting may be appropriate.

However, legal limits on what can be shared during ongoing litigation must be understood. We note that none of the overtures acknowledges the other side of these legal matters: the amount HotChalk sued the LCMS for, the substantial value of CTX campus property owned by the Synod’s congregations, or the current situation at HKIS. Such financial facts require accompanying context to be edifying rather than divisive. We commend the committee to weigh whether the intent is to inform the body or to create the impression of mismanagement; the resolution should serve the former, not the latter.

Other matters

Joint Seminary Fund and seminary support. The Synod

has consistently provided millions of dollars per triennium in support of our two seminaries. A resolution recognizing the Synod’s record of financial support to the seminaries, the critical importance of this continued partnership, and commending the Joint Seminary Fund will serve the Synod well. Currently, each seminary receives about $1.5 million per year in support from the Synod.

LCMS Foundation and Lutheran Church Extension

Fund. Both the LCMS Foundation and Lutheran Church

Extension Fund (LCEF) continue to provide outstanding service. A resolution warmly commending their work and encouraging congregational and individual use of their financial services and tools fits the body’s o ngoing recognition of these blessings.

Committee 9:

Committee 9: Structure and Administration Chair: Justin Panzer; Vice -Chair: Ben Ball; Primary Staff: Nathan Haak The 52 overtures before this committee divide helpfully into three categories: 14 from the Synod’s major boards (five from the Commission on Handbook, four from the LCMS Board of Directors, four from LCEF and one from the LCMS Foundation); 29 from districts, congregations and individuals; and a small number that, in our staff’s candid assessment, are unlikely to advance. The committee’s primary task is to attend to the substantive structural work proposed by the Synod’s standing boards while gently and appropriately handling the remainder.

From the Board of Directors and other Synod

boards

Greater authority for the mission boards (Ov. 9 -11). The

Synod Board of Directors proposes granting the Boards for

National and International Mission greater supervisory authority. This represents, in part, a reduction in the authority of the Office of the President. We support this direction. Our mission boards should have the tools they need to do their work effectively, including the necessary scope of authority over the work entrusted to them.

Structure and Administration (Ov. 9 -06 and Ov. 9- 08).

Overture 9 -06, submitted jointly by the LCMS Board of Directors, LCEF, Concordia Plans/Concordia Plan Services, the LCMS Foundation, and the Pacific Southwest District, proposes to unify in the requirements governing corporate entities created or used by Synod and its agencies, retiring the older guidance of 1981 Res. 5-07 and introducing a taxonomy of "Instrumental Entities" — including new Special Purpose and Passive Investment Entities — that would let the Board of Directors authorize real-estate redevelopment and investment vehicles while safeguarding the “ property of the Synod. ” Because it addresses the same field as Ov. 9 -08 (clarifying that LCEF may provide real estate evaluation and redevelopment services), the committee is asked to confirm with the CCM how the two relate before recommending action.

Chief operating officer (COO) position (Ov. 9 -09) and

chief mission officer (CMO) responsibilities (Ov. 9 -10).

These overtures propose bylaw changes to clarify and streamline the chief executive positions — consolidating the chief administrative officer (CAO) and chief financial officer (CFO) positions into the chief operating officer (COO) position — responsible t o assist the LCMS Board of Directors in carrying out its responsibilities, along with redefining the responsibilities of the chief mission office r. These deserve careful committee attention but are not anticipated to generate significant controversy.

LCEF governance (Ovs. 9 -08, 9 -15, 9 -16, 9-47). These

overtures address several LCEF matters including real estate services authority, board composition (Synod-elected versus appointed), thresholds for changes to governing documents, and the board member district representation. These are governance refinements brought by a critical financial partner of the Synod and deserve substantive consideration.

Commission on Handbook (COH) overtures (Ovs. 9-01

through 9 -05). These overtures are routine bylaw improvements that the committee can address with the COH’s assistance. They may be appropriate to be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Electoral circuit parameters

The 2023 convention established a task force (2023 Res. 9- 06A) to evaluate electoral circuit parameters. They have produced two substantial white papers (Reports R59.1 and R59.2). The committee may wish to draft a resolution responding to the task force’s findings; directing the appropriate next steps for districts and the Council of Presidents; and, if warranted by the evidence, bringing a specific recommendation to the 2029 convention. We commend caution against premature decisions on contested elements where additional study is genuinely useful.

Restructuring proposals (Ovs. 9-12 through 9-14)

Several overtures propose various restructuring of Synod structure: combining the mission boards into one board of which four members would serve on the LCMS Board of Directors (Ov. 9- 12), or in effect redoing the 2010 Synod restructuring (Ovs. 9-13 and 9- 14). Major restructurings come at significant cost in convention and organizational time, organizational disruption, and employee and board morale. We commend the committee to consider whether these proposals warrant task force study rather than convention action in this triennium.

Other matters

Restoration of Synod president election to the convention

floor (Ovs. 9-21 and 9 -22). I have no dog in this fight. If elected in 2026, I will not stand in 2029. The Synod’s current process of electing the Synod president prior to convention gives every member congregation a vote in the presidential election — a meaningful broadening of the franchise that has served the body well. For a while it de -politized the conventions somewhat, but the interested parties figured out how to make broader use of technical opportunities, often for political nonsense. Voter participation in the presidential election has declined in part because small, vacant congregations tend not to participate. Reverting to convention election of the Synod president would narrow that franchise. If I chose today, I’d say bring the vote back to the convention.

Four-year convention cycle (Ovs. 9 -42 and 9- 43). The

matter of implementing a quadrennial convention cycle has been considered in several previous conventions. We offer no fresh counsel beyond reviewing past convention proceedings on this matter, consulting with the secretary of the Synod for a deeper u nderstanding of the impact, and noting that any change would require a two-thirds constitutional majority and congregational ratification.

Committee 10: Ecclesiastical Supervision and

Dispute Resolution Chair:

Dispute Resolution Chair: Bob Beinke; Vice -Chair: Mark Chepulis; Primary Staff: Peter Lange Approximately 90% of the matters of ecclesiastical supervision discussed with district presidents are addressed calmly and corrected without ever becoming public. Unfortunately, in this current internet age, a few do become public. That ratio is a sign of a system functioning largely as the Synod intended, with a Council of Presidents that has grown stronger and more theologically united in recent years. The remaining 10% draws attention — often amplified by online platforms that do not afford the patience and care that genuine pastoral supervision requires. With 39 overtures clustering in several distinct groupings, the committee’s task is to attend to real concerns without inadvertently undermining what is working well. We encourage attention to overture n umbering: Priority resolutions should carry lower numerals (e.g., 10- 01 is top priority), since resolutions are typically presented numerically to the delegation.

Internet accusations, district president response and Synod president authority (nine overtures, including 10-06 through 10-10) Six of the nine overtures in this grouping come from a single congregation and contain narratives that, in our judgment, are not consistently accurate. In particular, the fifth and sixth whereases of Ov. 10-06 and the fourth whereas of Ov. 10-08 do not align with the actual sequence of events. The Synod president did not reverse what a district president undertook, but rather the president encouraged conversation between the parties. Within the proper bounds of ecclesiastical authority, there is real work to be done on the use of online platforms to monitor and publicize the practices of other congregations. We recommend the committee consider clarifying — without inflaming — the relationship of the Synod president to district presidents, drawing on B paragraphs 1–3, the preamble of 2016 Res. 12- 01A, and CCM Opinion 16- 2791. The Synod president cannot direct a district president; he can, with care, raise the question of whether a district president’s authority is being responsibly exercised.

At this stage, a sub -committee of the Council of Presidents constituted during the next triennium to address the use of online platforms in monitoring congregational practice — and to develop guidance for the council’s consideration — may serve the Synod better than proposing bylaw amendments to address the matter at this stage. We commend that approach to the committee. Ov. 10-07, which proposes establishing a new Ecclesiastical Appeals Panel, we do not recommend pursuing.

The dispute resolution process (Ovs. 10-12 through 10-16) Part 1 of the President’s Report identified the need to revisit the Synod’s reconciliation and dispute -resolution bylaws. After living with the current bylaws for several decades, the time has come for a careful review and revision. The current process has yielded fewer official conflicts, but it often produces dissatisfying outcomes for all parties, takes too long, and has additional challenges. Five overtures address genuine problems with the current dispute resolution process and its frequent confusion with , which pertains to ecclesiastical supervision and expulsion of a congregation or individuals from membership in the Synod. The two are distinct — one addresses disputes among members, the other heterodox practice — but they bleed into one another in practice. Pastors and district presidents alike often struggle to determine which applies. The requirement of the face-to -face meeting with the accuser and accused across the geographic scale of our country is also questionable for many situations. Several of these overtures call for a committee or task force to address the process. We are calling for a small task force in the next triennium charged with thoroughly studying the Bylaws, interviewing individuals involved in a dispute resolution process, and proposing bylaw amendments to the 2029 convention. Floor Committee 10’s work should make use of Ov. 10-13 and Ov. 10-15, which contain good material that can serve as a foundation to a proposed resolution. Ov. 10-14’s first resolve confuses and , illustrating the very problem the overture is trying to address. One more note, if a pastor is doing something contrary to the public confession and commitments of the Synod, it should not be the duty of another pastor to take that individual into a dispute process. If verified, it should be handled by the district president by meeting with the brother, verifying the facts, and getting a clear apology and promise not to repeat. To be clear, this does happen often.

Public sin and private sin (Ov. 10-12)

The next -to-last whereas of this overture has real merit. The CTCR’s 2006 document “Public Rebuke of Public Sin” remains a valuable resource and should be referenced in any resolution work on this topic.

Prosecution of sexual misconduct (Ovs. 10-27 through 10-30) Four overtures address the prosecution of sexual misconduct, with particular concern for whether investigations should continue after a worker has left the roster. This is a matter the Synod has been engaged with substantively since well before the 2023 convention’s Res. 10 -05A, “To Speak to Spiritual Care of Victims of Sexual Misconduct by Individual Members of the Synod,” was adopted. We are committed both to care for victims and to respond appropriately to perpetrators. Each situation is uniquely complic ated, and a pending civil lawsuit can constrain the Synod’s pastoral follow -up to those involved. We recommend the committee consult with LCMS Legal Counsel and Deaconess Dr. Tiffany Manor, managing director of the Office of National Mission, regarding the legal and authority questions raised with investigating individuals no longer on the roster. The Synod maintains a zero -tolerance posture regarding sexual misconduct and abuse by individual members of the Synod. The third resolve of each of these overtures is significant and deserves substantive discussion. The committee may also wish to consult with Council of Presidents members who have been deeply engaged on this matter (such as Minnesota South District President Lucas Woodford) regarding the fruit of 2023 Res. 10-05A over the past three years.

Visitation (Ov. 10-01)

This overture recognizes the importance of ecclesiastical oversight and supervision, calling for the encouragement of visitation to be conducted by the Synod president and district presidents. The Office of the President, with the assistance of internal an d district staff, district presidents, and Synod vice - presidents, has conducted approximately 100 district visitations since this practice formally began in 2013 (2013 Res. 7-01A). requires a district president to visit triennially congregations within his district — an ongoing practice faithfully carried out by district presidents. Refinement and improvements to this process are welcome, and the first resolve of this overture is a good proposed action. The second and third are already taking place. The committee may wish to recast this overture as a resolution of thanksgiving and encouragement to continue this practice, including a brief history of the visitation work undertaken in recent years. The committee may wish to carefully redraft the preamble so that it is clear and succinct but still describes the importance and benefit of visitation.

Other matters

Installation of district presidents. Historically, the Synod president, or a Synod vice -president whom he designates, installs (or reinstalls) each district president at the district convention where he is (re)elected. This is understood as an extension of . With 35 districts, however, this sometimes requires a great amount of communication and coordination to inform convention planners and navigate the expectations, traditions, and in some cases even policies or bylaws of 35 different districts . We encourage a simple bylaw fix to standardize the practice of district president installations. Secretary Sias is prepared to suggest language that would allow the Synod president or his designee to install at the district convention while still allowing for the transitional needs of a district when a new district president is elected. The new language could be inserted in .

Lawsuits (Report R62.12). The CTCR opinion on lawsuits between Christians or between members and Synod institutions provides a strong basis for a resolution encouraging Christian dispute resolution consistent with .

Pastoral care for congregations (Ov. 10-09). We remind the committee that district presidents already have this authority to provide pastoral care for congregations affected by major disciplinary actions. This overture is a fine example of an overture for omnibus disposition to the Council of Presidents.

RSO oversight. The committee is encouraged to coordinate with Floor Committee 4 on Life Together to draft a resolution highlighting the substantive work being done with organizations engaged in obtaining or maintaining LCMS Recognized Service Organization (RSO) status. A resolution affirming continued robust standards for granting RSO status and termination will serve the Synod well.

In Closing Brothers and sisters, we have laid before you a substantial body of counsel. These are observations and suggestions, not directives. The Synod has entrusted to you the careful work of crafting proposed resolutions that will shape our common confession and our common life for the next triennium. You are not alone in this work. The Holy Spirit, who gathered us in this Synod, who keeps us in the one true faith, and who continues to send us to the ends of the earth with the Gospel, is at work via His Word and Spirit in every committee room. Trust Him.

Two anniversaries draw nearer. In 2029, Luther’s Small

Catechism will be 500 years old. In 2030, the Augsburg Confession will reach the same milestone. These are not merely historical observances. They are opportunities for the Lord to renew His church through the very means He has always used: clear preaching of the Gospel, careful catechesis of the young, the Sacraments rightly administered, and the bold confession of His Word in season and out of season. We commend their preparation to your prayers and to the patient work of this and the next convention.

In the meantime, we have a convention to hold and a Synod to serve. Be kind to one another. Be patient. Hear voices that disagree with you and assume the best of their intent. Be decisive when decision is required, and humble when it is not. Remember that the brother or sister across the table from you is baptized into the same Christ as you, fed at the same altar, bound by the same Confessions, and called to the same mission. The risen Christ has placed us here together. He knows what He is doing.

Above all, let us keep our eyes on the One who unites us: Jesus Christ, our risen Lord, who was “delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (). He is the same yesterday, today and forever (). His Word does not return empty (). His promise to be with His church to the end of the age () is the only foundation any of our work can rest upon.

Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Let’s go ().

President's Report, Part 2

Authored by

Report text

The Enlightenment and Biblical Interpretation

Gods Dying and Rising Right and Left?

Resurrection No Myth; Justification as Myth

Hadrian Marks the Spot!

Constantine’s Mother

A Mythical New Testament as the Product of the

Community Debunked

The Fact of the Resurrection in the New Testament

The Spirit enlivens the words of and regarding

Without the resurrection, the Sacrament of the

Without the resurrection, God sent no savior to

To the Floor Committees: A Word on the

Toward strong resolutions

Other matters

Committee 2: International Witness

Chair: Robert (Lee) Hagan; Vice-chair: Nathan Meador

Toward strong resolutions

Committee 3: Mercy

Chair: John Pingel; Vice-Chair: Kevin Wilson

Toward strong resolutions

Throughout these discussions and the renewal process, the

Regarding (Ov. 4-29) challenging some reverences of Holy

Online technology and artificial intelligence

Other matters before the committee

New fellowship recognition

Concerns about sister churches (Ovs. 5-03 through

Closed Communion (Ovs. 5-16 through 5-18)

Other significant matters

Jonathan Shaw, director of Church Relations, on the

Other matters

We suggest that Floor Committee 6 consider whether and

Other matters

Other matters

Fund. Both the LCMS Foundation and Lutheran Church

From the Board of Directors and other Synod

Synod Board of Directors proposes granting the Boards for

Electoral circuit parameters

Restructuring proposals (Ovs. 9-12 through 9-14)

Other matters

Committee 10: Ecclesiastical Supervision and

Public sin and private sin (Ov. 10-12)

Visitation (Ov. 10-01)

Other matters

Two anniversaries draw nearer. In 2029, Luther’s Small