Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2023 · 68th Convention, Milwaukee › Page 174
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 174
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
front matter 17
front matter 18
front matter 19
front matter 20
front matter 21
front matter 22
front matter 23
front matter 24
front matter 25
front matter 26
front matter 27
front matter 28
front matter 29
front matter 30
front matter 31
front matter 32
front matter 33
front matter 34
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
Page 369
Page 370
Page 371
Page 372
Page 373
Page 374
Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
Page 382
Page 383
Page 384
Page 385
Page 386
Page 387
Page 388
Page 389
Page 390
Page 391
Page 392
Page 393
Page 394
Page 395
Page 396
Page 397
Page 398
Page 399
Page 400
Page 401
Page 402
Page 403
Page 404
Page 405
Page 406
Page 407
Page 408
Page 409
Page 410
Page 411
Page 412
Page 413
Page 414
Page 415
Page 416
Page 417
Page 418
Page 419
Page 420
Page 421
Page 422
Page 423
Page 424
Page 425
Page 426
Page 427
Page 428
Page 429
Page 430
Page 431
Page 432
Page 433
Page 434
Page 435
Page 436
Page 437
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
174
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Rev. Joe Hoem, Board of Directors, The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod
Michelle Kazmierczak, JD, Board of Regents, Concordia
University Chicago, River Forest, Ill.
Rev. Dr. Thomas Korcok, associate professor, Concordia
Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catharines, Ontario
Dr. Gerhard Mundinger Jr., chairman, Board of Directors,
Concordia University System
Rev. Dr. Scott Murray, third vice-president, The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod
Rev. Dr. Paul Philp, director of institutional research and
integrity, Concordia University System
Dr. Bradd Stucky, Board of Regents, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Rev. Dr. Dean Wenthe, president, Concordia University
System
Over the course of three days on the CTX campus, the visitation
team interviewed 53 individuals, met with both the CTX leadership
and the CTX Equity Team, attended chapel, and ate lunch in the
campus dining halls.
The visitation team asked questions related to Lutheran identity,
the mission of the university, the faculty’s use of a biblical worldview in their approach to controversial topics, the proposed change
in the university’s governance, campus life, and other related topics. At the end of many interviews, I asked how loved and supported students and faculty felt on campus. The visitation team did not
quarrel with interviewees and did not push back on answers given.
The team asked clarifying questions when appropriate or necessary. Summary statements from the interviews and related comments were included as an appendix to the report given to the BOR.
Dissimilar to their experience during prior ecclesiastical visitations, the visitation team to CTX felt unwelcome and carefully
managed while on campus. The team was repeatedly asked not to
interact with students or faculty outside of the interviews. Almost
every interviewee was accompanied by a “support person,” which
in most cases was a supervisor.
One member of the visitation team observed, “From the very
beginning the reception from the administration was not welcoming. … Almost everyone we were allowed to meet with was accompanied by a supervisor or support person. This made it difficult
for us to get a real look as to what is happening on campus. I was
certainly made to feel like I [as a representative of Synod] was the
bad guy, and we had no right to be on campus.”
This sentiment was echoed by nearly the entire visitation team.
They believed their time on campus was unproductive, that most
of the interviewees had been prepped with common talking points,
and that having a superior as a “support person” caused interviewees to give guarded answers.
The Concordia University Texas Proposal
Though I have been made aware of several concerns from former faculty members of CTX, the final precipitating event for our
visit was the BOR’s February 2022 announcement of their desire
to seek separation from the LCMS through a restructuring of its
governance model.
All interviewees were aware of the proposal to create a new
model for governing CTX apart from the Synod, though interview2023 Convention Workbook
ees had differing degrees of familiarity with both the proposed
model and the current model of governance. One person revealed
to the team that even as a new employee he was made aware, as
early as June 2021, of the university’s plan to seek independence
from the Synod.
The draft document “Reimagining the Relationship: A proposal
from Concordia University Texas to Separate from LCMS Governance,” proposes a “model of governance in which the institution
is solely governed by the CTX Board of Regents while continuing
to align itself with the LCMS.” To explain this proposal, the document also provides the rationale for separating from the Synod.
CTX views the move away from the Synod as one in the “long
tradition of Lutheran social service, medical, and military ministries” that have distanced themselves from their parent church
bodies. “To meet the above challenges, nimble, focused, and local
control is essential so that issues can be quickly addressed by those
most close to the institution. This proposed governance change
would equip the institution’s local board to address complex issues
in the most efficient way possible, ensuring that decisions can be
made in a way that best serves the church and local constituents,
much as is done in a congregation.”
When asked to identify the hindrances of Synod oversight that
keep CTX from responding to complex issues efficiently, interviewees named two: (1) the slow process for getting approval for
a loan from the Synod Board of Directors (BOD), and (2) the prior
approval process, which slows down hiring or removes some job
candidates from consideration.
These arguments fail to hold up to closer scrutiny and fail to
justify the university’s desire to completely change its governance
model to one that is a novelty in the history of the LCMS. In fact,
the CTX BOR minutes from the Sept.,6, 2019, meeting blame the
lender, not the Synod, for failure to get a loan on the school’s timeline. Regarding the second concern, prior approval is only required
for the hiring of the university president and members of the theology faculty. Administrators we spoke with only mentioned one hire
that was impeded by the prior approval process.
The proposal to separate from the Synod is also based on the
false assertion that the closing of three Concordias over the past
four years is evidence of the failure of the current governance
model. The closures of Concordia College Alabama, Selma, Ala.;
Concordia University, Portland, Ore.; and Concordia College New
York, Bronxville, N.Y., were not the result of too much oversight
from the Synod. They closed because of financial pressures and
declining enrollments. Their relationships to the Synod and financial assistance from both the Synod and her entities allowed them
to stay open much longer than they would have if they were selfgoverned and separate from the Synod. Over the past 16 years, the
LCMS has given over $92 million in support to the Concordia University System.
The CTX BOR identifies concerns about the governance changes proposed by the LCMS BOD 7-03 Task Force as the primary
rationale to seek separation from the Synod. The final form of the
task force’s proposal to the Synod in convention in 2023 is uncertain, and no one can know what the Synod in convention will
decide. Moving to separate from the Synod before the 7-03 recommendations are finalized or before the Synod in convention has
taken any action on the recommendations of the 7-03 Task Force is
imprudent and premature.