# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S38
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

38

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

circle of communication with key stakeholders in the commissioned
colloquy process. As of January 2023, this effort has resulted in
•

three conversations with the leadership of CUS, including
the college and university presidents;

•

one conversation with the primary colloquy director for each
CUS school;

•

an extensive report to the Council of Presidents;

•

several conversations with the director of LCMS School
Ministry;

•

an in-person visit with district education executives and
CUS placement directors at their annual CONFEDEX meeting; and

•

a report to the district president administrative assistants.

During the next triennium, the committee intends to build on
these relationships and lines of communication. With input from
others, the committee also hopes to complete a major revision of
the policy manual and to consider what elements of colloquy policy
might be better placed in the Synod Bylaws. The primary goals for
the next policy revision are
•

to work with, support, and encourage the CUS colleges and
universities in reimagining the future pedagogical model and
delivery mode for colloquy coursework;

•

to clarify the bylaw authority of each major stakeholder in
the colloquy process, as well as the boundaries that exist between the work of each;

•

to review the number and content of colloquy coursework
according to Bylaws 3.10.3.2 (a) and (b); and

•

to address the weakness and concerns of the colloquy process (listed below) that are within the domain of the CCCM.

•

understanding and implementing bylaw and policy authority and responsibilities relating to colloquy coursework, as
that relates to the varying roles given to the CUS, the CUS
schools, the CCCM, and CUEnet;

•

understanding and implementing bylaw and policy authority
and responsibility relating to the colloquy application process between the CCCM and CUEnet;

•

the perception by some that CUEnet’s pedagogical model
and mode of delivery for coursework need updating;

•

the perception by some that the procedure for assessing theological competency needs to be improved;

•

at least one current vacancy in senior CUEnet staffing, which
is being addressed as of February 2023;

•

the fact that in some if not many cases, the district office,
the certifying CUS school, and the CCCM are not aware of
potential colloquy candidates who are taking coursework toward colloquy until much or even all of that coursework is
completed;

•

the desire to remove unnecessary policy impediments to
colloquy while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the application process, especially as it relates to
“demonstrat[ing] the spiritual and professional attributes
that the Synod expects of its members” (Bylaw 3.10.3 [a]);

•

determining how best to use—in the colloquy process for
teachers from classical Lutheran schools—the “Standards
for Roster Candidates from Classical Liberal Studies Programs” that were approved by the CUS Board of Directors
in 2017 in response to 2016 Res. 7-05A;

•

concerns about an insufficient number of ways that colloquy applicants—especially teachers in classical Lutheran
schools—can give “evidence of professional commitment
to the field of education” (Policy 5.1.1.3) in fulfillment of
Bylaws 2.8.1 (c) and 3.10.3 (b); and

•

the challenge of colloquizing faculty members of LCMS
international schools who desire to join the LCMS while
serving overseas because of LCMS Bylaw 2.11.1 and the
absence of LCMS congregations in all international school
locations other than Hong Kong.

Strengths and Weaknesses
The following are some of the strengths of the colloquy process,
the CCCM, and other stakeholders:
•

a 175-year legacy of conscientious attention to commissioned colloquy;

•

dedicated and knowledgeable servants of the church body
leading, administering, and supporting the colloquy process;

•

good relationships between the CCCM and key stakeholders;

•

a good working relationship with CUEnet staff;

•

excellent course content, both via CUEnet and on our CUS
campuses, provided by numerous professors from our colleges and seminaries;

•

professional and smoothly functioning administration of the
colloquy process;

•

generous financial support of CUEnet from foundations
and individuals, much of which is passed along in colloquy
scholarships; and

•

an excellent administrative assistant in the Office of First
Vice-President, who assists with research, facilitates meetings, and provides a second set of eyes on colloquy applications.

Some of the weaknesses, or at least challenges, of the current
colloquy process are
2023 Convention Workbook

Opportunities and Threats
As far as opportunities go, once again, the various situations and
events that came together during this triennium have clearly led to
a new opportunity for a fresh evaluation of the commissioned colloquy process. More than that, there appears to be a widely shared
desire on the part of those who work together in colloquy to seize
this opportunity while at the same time appreciating the strengths
of the current system and ensuring the stability of the process as
much as possible.
The primary threat that is garnering attention, especially among
district presidents, their education executives, the LCMS School
Ministry Office, and CUS placement officers, is the diminishing
number of teacher candidates being certified by our CUS colleges and universities and placed in LCMS schools. Though the
Synod’s Set Apart to Serve initiative is addressing that in a very
robust way—and there is much hope for its success—commissioned colloquy is seen as another very important potential source
of well-equipped LCMS rostered teachers. During the three academic years from 2019–2022, 186 teachers were placed as com-