Official Workbook PDF page source text

Resolved, That those considered but not approved by an approval panel be given the reasoning upon request and every opportunity to clarify their position to the panel.

Northwest District

Ov. 7-22

To Clarify Prior Approval Process for Theological Faculties and Concordia University Presidents and Selection Process for Seminary Presidents

WHEREAS, Appointments to theological faculties at all universities and seminaries of the Synod are subject to the prior approval process (Bylaws 3.10.5.7.3; 3.10.6.9.2); and

WHEREAS, All college/university president appointments are subject to the prior approval process (Bylaw 3.10.6.8.2); and

WHEREAS, All seminary presidential appointments are subject to a selection process (Bylaw 3.10.5.6.2); and

WHEREAS, The se bylaws delegate the responsibility for prior approval to specific groups; and

WHEREAS, Bylaws related to theological faculty ( Bylaws 3.10.5.7.3; 3.10.6.9.2) include the phrase “and shall include a thorough theological review”; and

WHEREAS, The lack of a comprehensive definition of the scope of the prior approval process , beyond a “thorough theological review,” has led to questions among members of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, Trust among brothers and sisters could increase through a more well -understood process, relieving any undue criticism of the process and those who carry it out on our behalf;

therefore be it

Resolved, That the Northern Illinois District in c onvention memorialize the 2026 Synod c onvention to request Synod leadership publish articles in both The Lutheran Witness and Reporter to clarify what the prior approval process is and how it is being carried out.

Northern Illinois District

Ov. 7-23

To Support and Clarify Prior Approval Process Rationale Preamble Since the 2013 Synod convention, 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 Bylaws 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 used 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 increase transparency for the process and standards used by the panels as well as ensuring clear communication between the panels, the candidates, 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

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

WHEREAS, Those under consideration for theological professorships and other positions requiring prior approval have ordinarily been ordained into the Office of the Holy Ministry or have been commissioned and/or consecrated into an auxiliary office of the Church; and

WHEREAS, Those under consideration for aforementioned positions have also been examined and approved for service on the roster of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, Those individual members of the Synod have, by virtue of their membership in the Synod, agreed to the confessional basis as outlined in Constitution Article II, as well as recognized and affirmed the validity of Bylaw sections 1.6–1.8; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod 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; and be it further

Resolved , That the Synod in convention give thanks to those engaged in the various prior approval processes for being engaged in difficult and important work; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention require that the process, used by the various panels to carry out the responsibility entrusted to them by the Synod, be made transparent and publicly available;

and be it finally

Resolved, That the Concordia University System w eb page (cus.edu/protocols-and-procedures), which includes the Protocol for Pre-Approval of Concordia University Regents, Prior Approval of Theology Faculty at the Concordia Universities, and Process for the Selection of a College or University President , be expanded to include protocols for the seminaries.

California-Nevada-Hawaii District

Ov. 7-24

To Encourage Greater Transparency in Prior Approval Process

WHEREAS, There is a prior approval process for many activities, positions, and tasks of Synod leadership; and

WHEREAS, This process requires and allows no feedback to those members of the Synod who are not approved; therefore be it

Resolved, That this process be reviewed within one year following the 2026 Synod convention, and protocols created and enacted as a responsibility for persons making judgements to provide feedback to foster greater transparency to those going through the process for the good and welfare of all.

Atlantic District 2026 Convention Workbook

433UNIVERSITY EDUCATION