# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S170
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

170

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

One purpose for the BOR as a whole to exercise its ruling authority as directed by Synod Bylaws is to ensure that the minority
voices on the Board are at least heard. Until our visitation and simultaneous scrutiny from stakeholders throughout the Synod, the
regents consistently rejected the input of the elected pastors on the
BOR as well as the district president and my appointed representative. These men are seasoned pastors. They know the Scriptures
and are deeply concerned about mission drift at the university.
Some of these regents shared in the interviews their concerns that
the Executive Committee may be seeking to distance itself from
Synod oversight and affiliation.
Bylaws are not Scripture. Violating them is not the same as
breaking the Commandments. But they represent the way in which
we have agreed to walk together as a Synod. They guide us to our
common mission, which is the proclamation of Christ crucified for
the forgiveness of sinners. They are also the expressed will of the
congregations of the Synod, the congregations to whom all members of the LCMS and all of the Concordia universities, as institutions of the Synod, are accountable. That a return to the process for
selecting a president outlined in the Bylaws yielded such a candidate as Dr. Ankerberg is a testament to the value of following the
process laid out for all of us by the collective will of the congregations of the Synod.

Mission Drift
Three different adverse forces seem to be pressing on the university simultaneously: (1) fear of the “demographic cliff” threatening institutions of higher learning, (2) rapid and broad expansion
of CUWAA, and (3) a push by some in the administration for a
more progressive agenda.
Several administrators spoke of the looming “demographic
cliff” threatening higher education. Since the recession of 2008,
higher education pundits have been wringing their hands about
the declining birth rate and the looming decrease in undergraduate enrollments, which threaten traditional four-year colleges and
universities.
The danger is real. Since 2016, 75 universities have closed.
Those closures are largely the result of an inability to match income to expenses. Among that list of 75 shuttered universities are
three of our own Concordias: Concordia College Alabama, Selma,
Ala; Concordia University, Portland, Ore.; and Concordia College
New York, Bronxville, N.Y. Despite millions of dollars loaned by
Lutheran Church Extension Fund (LCEF) and the CUS, as well
as financial support provided by the LCMS and generous donors,
each of these schools closed because the financial obstacles simply
became too great to overcome. We would have mourned the loss of
any Concordia, but we have had to grieve the loss of three in quick
succession.
In 2012, Concordia University Ann Arbor (CUAA) was also in
an unsustainable financial situation. Instead of letting the institution
close, though, Concordia University Wisconsin (CUW) proposed a
merger that would assume CUAA into CUW and allow CUAA to
operate as a campus of the combined CUWAA. This move saved
CUAA by leveraging CUW’s stronger financial stability, and it
demonstrated the strength of the partnerships within our CUS. We
are grateful to God for the courageous leadership of CUW in this
matter. Prior to the merger, CUAA was losing millions of dollars
annually. Before the merger, CUW was profitable at $15 million
per year. After the merger, CUWAA was losing a few million dollars a year while paying off CUAA’s significant debts.
2023 Convention Workbook

Several interviewees expressed fears over the survival of
CUWAA. This deep concern over the future of CUWAA’s place in
higher education is the first force pushing the institution off course.
Fear of the future was a common theme in our interviews.
The second adverse force is related to the first. To contend
against these threats to the institution’s survival, CUWAA has
sought to expand its degree offerings in an effort to maintain a sustainable student base. CUW addressed its slow decline in church
work students since the 1970s by adding programs (nursing, pharmacy, health, and others not inherently incompatible with a Lutheran mission) that could keep the university profitable. This is
not at all unique. All our Concordia universities have followed a
similar course. Adding programs is not wrong or necessarily detrimental to a university’s mission. But the push for growth at CUWAA seems to have come at a significant cost to the institution’s
Lutheran identity.
We repeatedly heard the concern from interviewees across the
board (faculty, staff, administration, and students) that the driving
force at CUWAA was “growth at all costs.” The rapid expansion of
the university by means of ever-growing curricular offerings has
caused a significant obstacle. New programs necessitate rapid new
hires. New hires need to be taught the biblical and confessional
theology of the LCMS and how to integrate that teaching into their
discipline.
The effort to familiarize new instructors with the biblical and
confessional theology of the LCMS is sorely inadequate. As noted
above, the team learned that instruction for faculty in Lutheran doctrine and practice has been reduced from “formal ongoing training”
in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions to a mere one-hour exposure to Lutheran doctrine. Nascent efforts to correct this situation
were unknown to the theology faculty. In contrast, other Concordias have more robust programs for catechizing new faculty, with
at least one requiring additional study in Lutheran doctrine for faculty advancement.
The third adverse force is the introduction (sometimes inadvertent) of progressive ideologies of diversity. The Gospel is for
all people. Forgiveness in Christ truly puts all people on the same
level; the blood of Jesus is the price paid for every human being,
with no discrimination. All are created in the image of God.
Initiatives designed to draw more people to a place where they
can hear the Gospel, regardless of the color of their skin, are laudable. Intentional efforts to make minority students feel welcome
at our universities are divinely driven acts of Christian hospitality.
But words are not neutral. “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”
(DEI) is a phrase with a well-known secular meaning. In the workplace and in academia, DEI initiatives are not limited to race and
culture. They aim to diversify not just the ethnicity of their populations but also the gender identities, sexual preferences, abilities,
neurodiversities, and more.
CUWAA’s diversity initiatives have been hindered and have
caused consternation in the church because these terms were used
without being defined, leaving students, faculty, administrators,
and stakeholders with no reason to believe they were being used
in any way other than the common understanding of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” From many interviewees, we heard, “We did
not do a good job defining these words.” Some students and faculty reported unbiblical ways in which diversity was being taught
in some classrooms. Books with messages opposed to a biblical
worldview have been suggested as diversity resources.