LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 263

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

VIII. REPORT OF RES. 5-01A TASK FORCE
Assessment of Institutional Commitment to Lutheran Identity

Each institution will submit an annual written report to the
CUS board of directors describing, with evidence, how the institution meets the ten Lutheran Identity Standards. The report will be
endorsed by each respective board of regents and will be shared with
the campus community.
October 18, 2014
Lutheran Identity Standards for CUS Institutions
Explanations, Applications, Best Practices,
and Items for Further Discussion

1. Identity Statements
2. Board Members
Explanation: On this and following points, we simplified the wording
of membership. Called ministers are, indeed, direct members of the
Synod, but they are also affiliated with local congregations. Thus stating congregational membership is sufficient for this point. (It also
closes an alleged loophole based on misunderstanding. A person cannot be a member of the Synod without being affiliated with a particular
LCMS congregation.)
Discussion item: (Best Practice) Board members will have been active
communicant members of LCMS congregations for at least 2 years
before their appointment. (Obviously we cannot see the heart; this is
looking for outward signs of synodical fellowship.)

3. Senior Leadership
Explanation: We added oversight of athletic leadership to this list in recognition of the fact that students in athletics often have more contact
with these staff members than any other person on campus. Many athletic programs include faith components, so the need for theological
and ecclesiastical alignment is significant.
Explanation: The spirit of this is that the principal leaders of the university
and its individual units are fully aligned with our mission. To make
this a reality, the leaders must have genuine visibility to the day-today functions of each unit.
Discussion item: We might fruitfully discuss whether this needs more
specificity or if best practices might be more expansive. For example, should school deans be required to be members of the LCMS?
They make hiring recommendations (perhaps just shy of the actual
decision—but they certainly have a role in filtering candidates). If
not all deans, what about the dean overseeing theology or church
work programs?

4. Faculty
re Optimal exposure of open positions
Discussion item: Do we need standards (or best practices) for “optimal
exposure” of open positions, such as publication in Reporter or The
Lutheran Witness before the beginning of interviews with ample time
for applicants to respond and be vetted for interviews? (Do we want
to propose a length of time for response?) There needs to be a good
faith effort on this point. We might discuss how this works in cases
of expediency (which can reflect real challenges, but can also mask
agendas to deliberately bring in non-LCMS faculty). (Perhaps refer
this to the CUS Provosts/CAOs for discussion?)
Discussion item: Further work is needed to help our system schools in
this area. The CUS board of directors is charged with serving “as a
resource for the development of lists of potential teaching and administrative personnel” (Bylaw 3.6.6.5 [h]). What can we do to identify
and nurture LCMS faculty prospects? For example, could we propose
some endowed (or funded) professorships or postdoctoral fellowships
to train the up and coming? a scholarship program for graduate school
that is linked to required teaching?
Discussion item: How can we encourage all of our campuses to raise up
the best of our LCMS students for future professorships and share
them with one another (avoiding challenges of academic inbreeding)?

263

Discussion item: Further/ongoing work is needed on a candidate database. This may require the development of standards for who gets
in. Interest alone is not sufficient; a minimum educational level may
be required (MA or equivalent; probably not just MDiv in the case
of theology). Clearly stated expectations (e.g., academic freedom,
teaching load, need to have or complete terminal degree, etc.) would
help in this regard.

re Faculty and Staff Development
Explanation: Senior administrators and staff are included in this as their
important influence also needs to be normed by our LCMS identity.
Explanation: The faculty development program includes all faculty members, LCMS and non-LCMS alike. All will benefit from reflecting on
how our theological identity applies to higher education and what it
means to be affiliated with the LCMS. In addition, this will helpfully
put Lutherans in relationship with non-Lutherans.
Discussion item: We need to provide some help here. How can we develop
and/or improve this? Should we create a more centralized program?
(That has pros and cons.) Should portions be available online with
campus-specific additions? Could we bring some of the leaders of our
programs together for collaboration (e.g., Moulds at CUNE, Dawn
at CUI, etc.). Might the task force provide some guidance for what
this might look like?
Discussion item: An adjunct faculty development program may be an area
where a unified program from the CUS, perhaps with some local campus customization, could be particularly helpful.

Note: CUENet may be a helpful partner in these development
programs.
An additional item:
Discussion item: (Best practice) We recommend that a best practice in
this area is that LCMS faculty members will pursue colloquy as ministers of the Gospel and that their university will support them in this
endeavor.

5. Theology Faculty
Explanation: We recognize the value of ordained theological faculty to
both the university and the church. At the same time, there are times
when highly qualified commissioned ministers or laity may be beneficial to university and church. One would not want to write our
principles so rigidly as to exclude a Philip Melanchthon or Martin
Franzmann.
Discussion item: (Best Practice) If a layperson is selected, the terms of
their position will include successful completion of colloquy.
Explanation: As the bylaws indicate (Bylaw 3.6.6.1), all full-time theological faculty, regardless of roster status, will first receive prior approval.
Explanation: Part-time theological faculty will meet the same standard
of theological integrity as full-time.

6. Academic Freedom
See appendix to this report for full CUS policy.
7. Faith and Learning
8. Required Theology Courses
Explanation: In addition to theological identity, it is important to recognize that the quality and content of religion and theology classes varies
tremendously at non-CUS universities. This is why these courses are
normally taken at a CUS school. The called theology faculty are best
equipped to review exceptions to this ordinary practice.
Explanation: (Best Practice) In referring to theology courses, this statement means courses in Lutheran Christian theology. While there
is tremendous value in other religious studies topics (e.g., World
Religions) and these likely are taught at CUS schools, these are in
addition to the minimum standard of courses addressed above.
Explanation: It is assumed that these courses are 3 semester units each,
or that an equivalent number of credits (minimum of 6) is required.
Discussion Item: Should graduate programs have a similar requirement?
At least one class—perhaps in vocation and ethics—that applies

2016 Convention Workbook