LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 172

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

7. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
Synod through a formal governance structure;
supporting the mission and goals of the Synod;
strengthening Lutheran identity; accommodating as
many congregation-member students as possible;
equipping all who attend with a Lutheran higher
education that prepares them to be a blessing to
families, churches, communities, and workplaces; and
starting to build a bridge between such students and
the life of the Church.
2. There is also great promise and possibility in each of
the Concordias working—each with unique influence
and impact—in concert, called together by a Synod
convener to seek cooperative and collaborative efforts
and to support one another, aiming for a shared path
forward with collective influence that expands rather
than shrinks.
3. The viability and prospering of each university is, in
the long view, tied to its performance of a mission that
is unique in the field of higher education—as a
university that believes, teaches, and confesses the
Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. As Dr.
Luther wrote, “I greatly fear that the universities,
unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and
impress them on the young students, are wide gates to
hell” (“To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate,”
Luther’s Works 44:206–7; WA 6:462). This makes Synod
visitation and ecclesiastical supervision—a formal
expression of the rich visitation heritage of the
Church—invaluable to each institution. As such, each
of the Concordias shares a commitment, and
welcomes support and accountability, in providing a
higher education where the Scriptures are present and
prevalent, offering to those within the church and
beyond a compelling alternative to secular higher
education.
The following proposed amendments to the CUS, reflecting
these realities and hopes, have emerged from a series of recent
Synod convention actions (2013 Res. 5-01A; 2016 Res. 7-02B;
and 2019 Res. 7-03). The culminating 2019 convention action
directed the Synod’s BOD—with active involvement of the
President of the Synod; the CUS board, advisory council, and
president; the institutions’ boards of regents; and others as
needed—to propose a new governance plan for consideration
and adoption by the 2023 convention. The process directed by
2019 Res. 7-03 required the concurrence of the CUS advisory
council and the CUS BOD and a period of review and comment
by the entire Synod, which took place between March and
September 2021. The following plan—significantly revised by
the university presidents and drafting committee while the
Workbook was going to print—is presented in pursuit of a
realistic, sustainable, and transparent framework, satisfying
and acting upon the following objectives of the
aforementioned resolutions, as summarized in 2019 Res. 7-03,
as summarized at the outset.
Each of the following seven sections (A–G) of the proposed
governance plan is prefaced by a rationale section briefly
relating the proposed changes to the above objectives. In
172 | PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2023 (68TH) LCMS CONVENTION

response especially to the thrice-expressed (2013 Res. 5-01A;
2016 Res. 7-02B; 2019 Res. 7-03) desire of the convention for
materially strengthened connections with the Synod’s colleges
and universities, detailed bylaws refocus the CUS on
providing concrete mechanisms for continued evaluation and
enhancement where the Synod’s strength most lies and where
it most matters: confessional Lutheran identity and mission
focus. At the same time, responding to the rationale for 2019
Res. 7-03, to the collective desire expressed by the several
boards of regents, and to practical necessity, the following
proposal aims, so far as an appropriate governance structure
can, to foster and facilitate the coordination and collaboration
that will help the institutions to succeed, individually and
together—as schools committed to the church and her
mission—in an increasingly challenging higher education
environment.
A. TO REFOCUS CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
AS ECCLESIASTICAL VISITOR
Rationale
In keeping with the charge of 2019 Res. 7-03 to “review the
overall governance of CUS and the boards of regents of the
CUS institutions,” the interaction of the Synod, its President,
BOD, CUS, and the various boards of regents was examined
from the perspective of the “two kingdoms” in an attempt to
be clear about who is responsible for which aspects of the
schools’ governance and in what manner.
It is relatively easy to distinguish right-hand (doctrine,
practice, ecclesial mission) and left-hand (business, property,
legal) aspects of a university’s operation and to understand
their different realms of Synod supervision and oversight. The
two “hands” can hardly be separated, however, especially in
the work of a board of regents. Of concern have been recent
situations in which left-hand realities have overwhelmed the
right hand’s ability to continue the mission, or left-hand
powers and supposed obligations have distracted a board of
regents from its right-hand obligations. To be sure, regents
are responsible to keep the ship of their institution afloat (in a
business, property, and legal sense)—but their work hardly
ends there; they are charged much more to steer their ship in
the direction of the church’s mission (doctrine, practice,
ecclesial mission). A ship afloat but rudderless is as useless to
the church as is a well-charted course for a sunken ship. Thus,
as a Christian lives in two kingdoms but as one subject—
entrusted at once with material gifts and human
relationships, on the one hand, but also with the Word of God,
on the other—so these two spheres meet in the board of
regents of a Synod university. Subject to the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod, the ultimate responsibility and
independence in operating the institution lie with these
regents (2019 Bylaw 3.10.6.4 [i][6]; 3.10.6.5).
Helping the ships of our schools successfully navigate the
challenging seas, these days, for universities of any stripe
except those with massive endowments while maintaining
their freedom to maneuver on the church’s charted course is a
grand challenge for each board of regents. They need agility to
marshal their institutions’ material resources for mission.
They need to be accountable to the Synod in two distinct ways:
Resolutions