Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 468

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