# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S176
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

7. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
as it appoints further members and assists the districts
and Synod colleges and universities, respectively, in
identifying potential regents for election and
appointment.
…
3.12.3.7 The chairman of the Committee for Convention
Nominations shall submit the committee’s report in person
to the convention at one of its earliest sessions and shall
facilitate the amendment of the slate from the floor.
…
(c) Such floor nominations may only be made from the
list of names which have previously been offered to the
Committee for Convention Nominations prior to the
final deadline for the submission of nominations, unless
the convention shall otherwise order by a simple
majority vote. The President of Concordia University
System (or a designee) and the Secretary of the Synod (or
a designee) shall verify that all floor nominees to serve as
a member of a Concordia University System board of
regents possess qualifications as stated in Bylaw 3.10.6.2
(8). The qualifications of floor nominees for boards of
regents of Synod colleges and universities shall be
verified as provided in Bylaw 3.10.6.2.1. The Chief
Administrative Officer President of the Synod (or a
designee) and the Secretary of the Synod (or a designee)
shall review and verify that all floor nominees to serve as
a member of the Concordia University System Board of
Directors possess qualifications as stated in Bylaw
3.6.6.3.2.1.
…
and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Synod, in consultation
with the Standing Committee on Nominations, the CUS BOD
and Institution Advisory Council, and Synod BOD, be directed
to prepare specific forms for nomination of regents and CUS
directors, whether elected or appointed, that require detailed
elaboration of subject matter qualifications as indicated in
Bylaws 3.6.6.2.1 and 3.10.6.2.1, which forms shall be used in
each election or appointment process; and be it further
Resolved, That the CUS BOD, in consultation with legal
counsel, draft new governing documents for CUS to bring it
into compliance with the above and with all other applicable
bylaws and present them, as soon as practically feasible and
in the interest of the Synod, for adoption subject to Bylaw
3.6.1.7; and be it finally
Resolved, that the CUS BOD and its members be directed
to facilitate the adoption and, as applicable, filing of the new
governing documents and provide a copy of such documents
to the Synod’s colleges and universities.
B. TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES
FOR FORMAL ECCLESIASTICAL VISITATION
OF THE CONCORDIA UNIVERSITIES
Rationale
In keeping with the charge of 2019 Res. 7-03 to “strengthen all
CUS institutions’ connection to the Synod” and to “strengthen
the confessional Lutheran identity of all CUS institutions,” the
176 | PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2023 (68TH) LCMS CONVENTION

role of CUS as assistant to the President in his ecclesiastical
visitation (Const. Art. XII 7; Bylaws 1.2.1 [j]; 3.3.1.1.1 [c], 3.3.1.2
[c]; 3.6.6.4 [h]) of the Concordia universities is elaborated,
strengthened, and made more transparent. CUS visitation of
colleges and universities will focus on their Lutheran Identity
and Mission Outcomes (that is, their effective preparation of
church workers, thorough preparation of Lutheran laity for
service and leadership in the church, and immersion of all
students in a faithful and forthright Lutheran context and
curriculum).
2016 Res. 7-01A, “To Adopt Lutheran Identity Statements for
CUS Institutions as Prepared by CUS Presidents” (Proc., 171–
72), already adopted by the convention and the several boards
of regents, provides an initial framework for the Lutheran
Identity and Mission Outcomes Standards (“Standards”); the
process of visitation set forth in new bylaws aims to provide a
context for evaluating and fostering each institution’s growth
in achieving these mission outcomes. The ecclesial visitation
process here set forth assures and fosters growth in the
connection of our universities with the Church, its confession,
and its non-seminary, higher education mission objectives.
The process holds college and university boards of regents
(and through them, presidents, faculties, and staffs)
accountable to the Synod for the governance, administration,
and implementation of programs and campus life consistently
faithful to the confession of and oriented toward the mission
of the church—not as imposition of an external compulsion
but as “iron sharpening iron” in pursuit of each college or
university’s own all-encompassing, sacred purpose.
The visitation process is primarily formative, in that it engages
institutions in self-study and outside evaluation, relative to
the expectations of the Standards. Every institution will be
engaged, no matter its present degree of success in pursuing
the ideals of the Standards, and challenged to demonstrate
concrete plans for such pursuits. While CUS has in the past
aimed to state ideals and to work with institutions with
identified deficiencies, this model provides a definite process
intended accountably and transparently to advance all
Concordia institutions in their pursuit of the Standards and,
therefore, in their service in support of and on behalf of the
member congregations of the Synod.
Visitation is also finally summative; that is, it can reach the
conclusion that the Standards expected have not and cannot
reasonably be expected to be reached. While no one desires
this outcome, its definite possibility is intended to strengthen
the intentional working of all Concordia colleges and
universities, taking into account the possibility of differences in
opinion about objectives or weaknesses in leadership, with
CUS in pursuit of the Synod’s objectives. The model allows for
both quiet and open cautions about weaknesses in a
university’s accomplishment of the Standards. An institution
or program that loses ecclesiastical affirmation loses its ability
to prepare and declare qualified church workers for rostered
service in the Synod as well as some of its rights to participate
more broadly in the life of the Synod; it is put on public notice
that it is not adequately fulfilling its churchly mission. Such a
finding may prompt the removal of a university president for
reasons of doctrine and practice as provided in the bylaw
revisions proposed hereunder (proposed Bylaw 3.10.6.8.3).
Resolutions