To Support and Clarify Prior Approval Process for Theological Faculty and Presidential Candidates for Concordia University System

Ov. 7-20

To Support and Clarify Prior Approval Process for Theological Faculty and Presidential Candidates for Concordia University System Preamble Since the 2013 Synod c onvention, appointments to theological faculties at all universities and seminaries, as well as all college, university, and seminary presidential appointments, have been subject to the prior approval process. While the 2013 Synod convention amended the B ylaws to delegate the responsibility for prior approval to specific groups (as referenced below) the Bylaws did not, and still do not, stipulate how the process of prior approval should be carried out. Over time this has led to questions as to the standards used to evaluate candidates as well as the process utilized by the prior approval panels. In the hopes of building trust and relieving any undue criticism of the panels and the process, the following overture aims to in crease feedback for the process and standards used by the panels as well as ensuring clear communication between the panels, the candidates, their ecclesiastical supervisors, and the Synod.

WHEREAS, One of the expressed purposes of the Synod is to “recruit and train pastors, teachers, and other professional church

workers and provide opportunity for their continuing growth” (Const. Art. III 3); and

WHEREAS, The Synod has the responsibility to oversee that training, and has done so in various forms throughout its history;

and

WHEREAS, The Synod has delegated a portion of that responsibility to the prior approval panels outlined in various bylaws (Bylaws 3.6.6.1; 3.10.5.7.3; 3.10.6.8.2; 3.10.6.9.2); and

WHEREAS, The restructuring of the Synod by the 2010 Synod convention eliminated existing agencies tasked with prior approval for seminary faculty members (namely, the Board for Pastoral Education; 2010 Res. 8 -08A, “To Realign the National Synod Ministries around Two Mission Boards”); and

WHEREAS, The Synod in convention adopted 2013 Resolution 5- 11B, “To Amend Bylaw 3.10.4.7.3 re Appointment of Seminary Faculty” (the noted bylaw being subsequently renumbered to 3.10.5.7.3), which established a three-person prior approval panel for the appointment of full -time seminary faculty members, to be comprised of three ordained members, including “the President of Synod (or his designee), the chairman of the Council of Presidents (or his designee), and the c hairman of the Board for National Mission (or his designee)” (Bylaw 3.10.5.7.3 [a]); and

WHEREAS, The Synod in convention subsequently adopted 2016 Res. 7-06B, “To Assist Our CUS Institutions in Demonstrating Our Common Confession,” which established a three-person prior approval panel for the appointment of those teaching theology classes at a Concordia University System institution, to be comprised of three ordained members, including “the President of Synod (or his designee), the chairman of the Council of Presidents (or his designee), and a member of the Concordia University System (CUS) board selected by the chair” (Bylaw 3.10.6.9.2); and

WHEREAS, Those panels not only have responsibility to work on behalf of the Synod but are also responsible to the Synod; and

WHEREAS, There has been confusion about the prior approval process by candidates under consideration, their ecclesiastical supervisors, boards of regents, and others throughout the Synod;

therefore be it

Resolved, That the Minnesota South District in convention give thanks to the Lord of the Church for using the Synod and its agencies to preserve and enlarge the workers of the harvest (Matt.

9:35–38); and be it further

Resolved, That the district in convention express thanks and appreciation to the CUS Board of Directors for developing and making public their criteria for evaluating theology faculty candidates during their prior approval process ( cus.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2025/03/Prior-Approval-Protocol-for-TheologyFaculty.pdf); and be it further

Resolved, That the district in convention memorialize the Synod to further clarify and communicate the prior approval process for seminary faculty and seminary and university presidents; and be it finally

Resolved, That the district in convention memorialize the Synod in convention to encourage fraternal and confidential communications through appropriate channels with candidates not approved by a prior approval panel, along with their ecclesiastical supervisor, taking into account privacy laws, to enable them to provide correction where necessary and encouragement to continue their service and ministry to the Church with confidence and joy.

Minnesota South District