Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2023 · 68th Convention, Milwaukee › Page 349
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 349

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

FLOOR COMMITTEES: REPORT AND OVERTURE ASSIGNMENTS

7. University Education

•

REPORTS
R1, R2.2, R5.2, R14–R14.5,
R55, R61, R63–R64, R65

•

OVERTURES

•

Ov. 7-01

To Provide Comment to 2019 Res. 7-03 Committee
concerning CUS Governance Model Proposal
WHEREAS, The Synod in convention adopted 2019 Resolution 703 “To Direct a Collaborative Process to Propose a New
Governance Plan” with respect to university education; and
WHEREAS, 2019 Res. 7-03 resolved “That the proposed new
governance plan specifically address the objectives of 2013 Res. 501A and 2016 Res. 7-02B by continuing to:
• strengthen all CUS institutions’ connection to the Synod;
• strengthen the confessional Lutheran identity of all CUS
institutions;
• review the composition, size, and selection of boards of
regents;
• review the process for selecting presidents of institutions;
• review the overall governance of CUS and the boards of
regents of the CUS institutions;
• review the financial models for the institutions;”
and
WHEREAS, 2019 Res. 7-03 further resolved “That a report on the
initial governance model proposals be disseminated to the Synod
for a six month period of comment commencing not later than 15
months prior to the start of the 2022 convention of the Synod”; and
WHEREAS, At the February 19, 2021 meeting of the Board of
Directors (BOD) the board approved dissemination of the initial
governance model proposal, setting the stage for the “built-in, sixmonth period of comment … by the Synod’s congregations,
districts and circuits, the universities themselves, and others”
(David Strand, “BOD advances new CUS governance model”
Reporter Online, March 8, 2021, reporter.lcms.org/2021/bodadvances-new-cus-governance-model); and
WHEREAS, In the report of the Texas District president to the
2021 Texas District Convention the president highlighted our
woven “life together” with Concordia University Texas (CTX),
while also referencing 2019 Res. 7-03 and the solicitation of
feedback from constituents (Texas District 2021 Convention
Workbook); and
WHEREAS, The Texas District president further reported that the
CTX staff and Board of Regents (BOR) continues to be active in
this feedback process; and
WHEREAS, The governance model proposal is a 27-page
document of bylaw changes that have been and continue to be
reviewed and discussed by the CTX president and BOR, as well as
the presidents and BOR of other universities in the CUS; and
WHEREAS, This review has produced affirmations, among them
being:

•

•

349

An appreciation of the hard work that the Resolution 7-03
committee has done to review and evaluate the current
structure and bylaws and create a new structure that serves
the church and its needs.
Giving to the boards of regents unfettered authority and
responsibility in the business matters of the school (Section
A, page 3, lines 15–16).
Defining the universities as affiliates of the church rather
than agencies (Section B).
Providing an ecclesial accreditation process by which the
schools demonstrate their commitment to being and
remaining Lutheran (Section C).
Creating structures and opportunities by which church
worker programs at LCMS colleges and universities can be
strengthened and sustained (Section D).

and
WHEREAS, This review has produced concerns, among them
being:
• That while the new governance model allows greater
autonomy to universities with respect to “left hand kingdom”
responsibilities, the new bylaws are highly prescriptive and
give large measures of control outside the local BOR,
particularly the selection of members of the BOR. The
concerns for both universities and Synod alike are
diminishing any true legal separation and increasing any
ascending liability rather than reducing it as intended.
• That the Commission for University Education (CUE) can
not only and exclusively remove an BOR member for
training deficiencies but can force a local BOR to remove an
appointed BOR member for the same.
• That the prior approval panel, with a disproportionate
amount of influence by the CUE, creates the list of
presidential nominees from which the BOR may select their
president versus the BOR creating and narrowing a list of
nominees to be vetted and approved by the prior approval
panel.
• That the Synod BOD, in consultation with the CUE, can
specify, amend, or rescind the benefits of affiliation from
time to time without the consultation of the local BOR,
creating an unclear future for universities legally,
financially, strategically, and missionally, and doing the
same to students themselves.
• That the CUE’s decisions regarding accreditation with
respect to Lutheran identity and mission outcome standards
may not be appealed. Regional (secular) accreditors all have
an appeal process in place that is outlined and known.
and
WHEREAS, This review has produced questions, among them
being:
• How might the reality of today’s students and the schools as
a mission field be more prominent and celebrated in the
Preamble and throughout?
• It appears that the workload of the CUE is even greater than
the CUS. How will that work be resourced? What will be any
added costs to the church and/or schools over time? What is
meant by “direct costs” in terms of accreditation visits and
board training?

2023 Convention Workbook