<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conducted by:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key to Abbreviations:\u00a0<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Introduction:\u00a0<\/strong> This initial report contains observations and recommendations from findings in the\u00a0 investigation that is still in progress. Supporting documents, emails, resolutions and other\u00a0 communications\u2014some confidential\u2014are being held by the district president.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Observations:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. CTX leadership\/CTX Board of Regents and the LCMS BOD 7-03 Committee had a\u00a0 different understanding about the feedback process regarding the proposed 7-03 bylaws.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The CTX BOR understood that personal dialog would be part of the process of refining the 7- 03 proposal. The LCMS BOD 7-03 committee understood the feedback process to be that of\u00a0 gathering input and examining it internally to determine the need for any adjustments to the\u00a0 proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This misunderstanding, stretching from July 2020 through the fall of 2021, resulted in growing\u00a0 frustration, a sense of being marginalized, and diminished trust on the part of the CTX BOR\u00a0 toward the LCMS BOD 7-03 Committee and LCMS leadership.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. CTX leadership\/CTX Board of Regents and the LCMS BOD\/CUS understood different\u00a0 motives in the CTX BOR\u2019s examination of alternate governance models.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CTX understood a twofold purpose in this examination: a) To investigate contingency plans\u00a0 and procedures that may need to be in place if disaffiliation from the LCMS ever happened as\u00a0 outlined in the 7-03 proposal, and b) To bring detailed suggestions to the LCMS regarding\u00a0 viable alternatives to the 7-03 bylaw draft.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n LCMS leadership later saw this discussion, recorded in the CTX BOR meeting minutes, as a pre planned effort to separate from the LCMS.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This misunderstanding continued to diminish trust between CTX and the LCMS and hampered\u00a0 the ability to dialog together about the goal of improved governance for the Concordia Universities. COVID Isolation contributed to the communication gap.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. The deterioration of a collegial and trusting relationship between CTX and the LCMS\u00a0 was exacerbated by the sudden and vociferous introduction of theological concerns by\u00a0 the President of Synod at the November 17,2021 gathering of the Council of Presidents\u00a0 and University Presidents.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The theological concerns dated back to June of 2020, 17 months earlier, with no\u00a0 communication about them prior to the November 2021 COP meeting. The encounter created\u00a0 a bigger gap in the relationship between the LCMS and CTX and further deteriorated the\u00a0 possibility of a trusting dialog. It also introduced the new element of theological concerns in\u00a0 the LCMS\u2019s work with CTX.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. CTX leadership\/CTX Board of Regents and the LCMS visitation team did not share a\u00a0 mutual understanding of the purpose or desired outcomes of the April 2022 LCMS visit.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n LCMS President Harrison and a visitation team visited CTX from April 20-22, 2023. Team\u00a0 members met with a number of CTX leaders, administrators, faculty members, students, and\u00a0 BOR members. With no report or feedback until 8 months after the visit, the lack of trust and\u00a0 understanding between LCMS leaders and CTX grew.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. The LCMS BOD\/CUS and CTX leaders and the BOR understood different motives and\u00a0 outcomes with regard to the process outlined by the LCMS BOD as a way of discussing an\u00a0 alternate governance model.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The LCMS BOD introduced separation from the Synod as the only way permitted by the LCMS bylaws to discuss an alternate governance model at CTX. The LCMS BOD outlined a process for\u00a0 this separation discussion that would be managed by the CUS. The CTX BOR did not desire\u00a0 separation from the LCMS, but wanted a governance model that continued a relationship with\u00a0 the LCMS in place of the proposed 7-03 governance bylaws. Misunderstanding in\u00a0 communication grew\u2014especially as it became limited to letters and a narrow bandwidth of\u00a0 email recipients per CUS leadership request.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. CTX leadership\/CTX BOR and the CUS understood different purposes and procedures for\u00a0 the process outlined by the LCMS BOD and managed by the CUS. Communication about the\u00a0 required proposal from CTX to the CUS diminished in effectiveness and clarity throughout\u00a0 the latter half of 2022.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The CTX BOR sent a draft proposal to the CUS in July of 2022 per the LCMS BOD process. CUS\u00a0 leaders requested unspecified additional documents, which CTX assumed to be governing\u00a0 documents to accompany the proposal. These were drafted and sent in September of 2022.\u00a0 While awaiting next steps for mutual discussion and refinement of the material, the CTX\u00a0 president was notified in late October of 2022 that the CUS had prepared a resolution,\u00a0 complete with supporting reasons and rationale, to share with the LCMS BOD at its November 18, 2022 meeting. The content of the resolution was not revealed by CUS leaders. Departing from the process outlined by the LCMS BOD, the introduction of a resolution from the CUS to\u00a0 the LCMS BOD and the refusal to reveal its contents caused confusion and concern for the CTX\u00a0 BOR..\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. CTX leadership\/CTX Board of Regents and the CUS had no shared understanding about\u00a0 the CUS Board Resolution intended for LCMS BOD consideration on November 18, 2023.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The original discussion process between CTX and the CUS was now altered and a resolution\u00a0 with unrevealed content was to be presented by the CUS directly to the LCMS BOD.\u00a0 Understanding that the CUS and LCMS BOD could, acting together and without the consent of\u00a0 input of a local BOR, divest or consolidate CTX with another university according to bylaw\u00a0 3.6.6.4.i (an authority granted with a 2019 change in bylaws), and having as a backdrop\u00a0 closure of three LCMS universities over the past four years, the CTX BOR, at an emergency\u00a0 meeting on November 8, 2022, voted 13-5 to adopt governing documents that gave the CTX\u00a0 BOR sole governing authority of the university.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. Varied understanding about LCMS bylaws led to different conclusions regarding appropriate actions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As the CTX BOR and LCMS leaders navigated the situation, varied understanding about the\u00a0 ecclesiastical supervision process (bylaw 1.2.1.j), CUS bylaw obligations (bylaw 3.6.6.1,\u00a0 \u201ccoordinating the activities of the Synod\u2019s colleges and universities as a unified system of\u00a0 the Synod through their respective boards of regents\u201d<\/em>), university governance responsibilities (bylaw 3.10.6, 3.10.6.1, 3.10.6.4.a), and proper fiduciary duties toward the university (bylaw\u00a0 3.10.6.4.i.6, \u201cIn such event the board of regents shall have power to perform such acts as\u00a0 may be required by law to effect the corporate existence of the institution\u201d<\/em>), created\u00a0 additional confusion and dissonance.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9. Subsequent communication between CTX and the LCMS showed broken trust and the\u00a0inability to recover a working relationship.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In spite of meetings and conversations following the November 8, 2022 CTX BOR action, CTX\u00a0 and the LCMS remained at an impasse about the propriety of actions thus far and how to\u00a0 move forward.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10. Theological concerns raised in November of 2021 were addressed throughout the\u00a0 remainder of 2021 through early 2023. Some of the theological issues were due to\u00a0 carelessness on the part of CTX leadership. Others were concerns that should have been\u00a0 vetted through the CTX leadership before they were brought to the Synod President\u2019s\u00a0 office. All have been addressed (see theological concerns summary page).\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Some issues raised were based on hearsay and were not accurate. Other issues were\u00a0 legitimate and needed to be addressed through personal conversation and counsel. For each\u00a0 issue raised, the process required by the LCMS bylaws for handling theological questions and\u00a0 issues was bypassed.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Summary thoughts:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation between CTX and the LCMS is sad and distressing for the church. Lack of\u00a0 communication and a breakdown in trust led to the unfortunate outcome. In the context of\u00a0the consideration of the 7-03 proposal and in general leadership style, CTX and LCMS leaders\u00a0 had different focal points, fears, communication tendencies, and personality characteristics.\u00a0 These differences contributed misunderstanding, an adversarial spirit, and the ultimate\u00a0 rupture in the relationship.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Findings thus far in this investigation indicate that no rostered worker at CTX or on the CTX\u00a0 BOR had an intention or desire to disparage or depart from the LCMS. However, outside\u00a0 circumstances contributed to a deteriorating relationship between CTX and the LCMS: COVID\u00a0 isolation and anxiety; apprehension surrounding cultural upheaval in the areas of race, gender\u00a0 and sexuality issues; tension about institutional administration in a radically changing higher\u00a0 education environment; and differing viewpoints about the LCMS relationship to the\u00a0 Concordia Universities.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n CTX has served as a faithful university of the LCMS for nearly 100 years and continues to\u00a0 demonstrate faithfulness to the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions, rejoicing in successes\u00a0 and accepting counsel and correction where appropriate. While challenges will always exist in\u00a0 a university context, these challenge are reasons for rejoicing. At its universities, the LCMS\u00a0 has the opportunity to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to new generations, new cultures, and\u00a0 new people. In the midst of cultural upheaval and chaos, LCMS universities engage hopeless\u00a0 and drifting souls with the Good News of forgiveness and new life in Christ. Leaders entrusted\u00a0 with university ministries must ensure that mutual and collegial conversation and\u00a0 accountability prevail. The initial findings of this report indicate that the rostered LCMS\u00a0 workers at CTX and on the CTX BOR are committed to the theological standards of the LCMS,\u00a0 implementing corrective actions as counseled and committing to faithful action moving\u00a0 forward. Differences of opinion regarding the interpretation and implementation of bylaws\u00a0 (some noted in Observations point #8) still exist between some LCMS and CTX leaders\/BOR\u00a0 members as evidenced in the CTX BOR action of April 4, 2023 and the communication\u00a0 between the LCMS BOD\/CUS and the CTX BOR since that action. These outstanding\u00a0 differences lead to the following recommendations:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recommendations:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. CTX and LCMS leaders repent and return to the Scriptural foundations and direction for\u00a0 resolution of conflicts in order to build a trusting relationship as fellow Christians and\u00a0 servants of God.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. After CTX and LCMS leaders build greater trust, they begin to discuss bylaw parameters\u00a0 that allow collegial conversation about governance models and practice, looking for the fruit\u00a0 brought about by the \u201cministry of reconciliation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Appropriate CTX and LCMS leaders enter into collegial dialog regarding theological\u00a0 concerns as they arise for the purpose of resolving issues, formulating solutions, and\u00a0 maintaining accountability and trust.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. Mutual repentance on the part of all involved be expressed specifically, in person to one\u00a0 another, and publicly as necessary, trusting that repentance will bear God-pleasing fruit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Theological Concerns Summary\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The theological issues raised regarding CTX included:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Presentations by Dr. Darrell Jodock, an ELCA higher education scholar, Dr. Gina\u00a0 Garcia, an expert in Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Jelani Consulting, experts in\u00a0 managing diverse staffs and workplaces. <\/em>In each instance, CTX leaders received\u00a0 challenge and stimulation regarding the subject matter and applied it to the particular\u00a0 context of being a faithful Lutheran university, but did not adopt every area of\u00a0 teaching or recommendation. Such presentations with non-LCMS scholars were not\u00a0 unique to CTX, but are a common practice in higher education, including that of our\u00a0 seminaries https:\/\/www.csl.edu\/2021\/07\/registration-now-open-for-31st-annual theological-symposium\/\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The allegation that two faculty members were dismissed due, in part, to their\u00a0 fidelity to the Lutheran Confessions. <\/em>The identity of these faculty members has not\u00a0 been specified or addressed with CTX, but no faculty member has been dismissed for\u00a0 this reason in the history of CTX. Faculty members have only been released due to\u00a0 personnel issues, performance issues, or budget issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Chapel speakers. <\/em>A non-LCMS MBA graduate and former CTX employee was invited to\u00a0 give his testimony at a special evening chapel for the MBA students. He asked\u00a0 attendees to raise their hands to give indication of their commitment to Christ. His\u00a0 leading of chapel was a violation of LCMS worship practice and his calling for an\u00a0 indication of commitment caused doctrinal confusion. The CTX BOR discussed how to\u00a0 keep this from happening in the future.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The \u201cConsent\u201d web page. <\/em>Initially, Title IX verbiage was posted on the web page.\u00a0 Correction and counsel were accepted and changes were made. The page now stays\u00a0 within legal guidelines and reflects Lutheran Christian Biblical practice. There is no\u00a0 agenda on the CTX campus for a non-biblical approach to sexuality.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). <\/em>The Concordia University Texas student\u00a0 population is 60% students of color with at least 40% of the student body indicating\u00a0 they are of Hispanic origin. CTX is committed to ensuring that students from all\u00a0 backgrounds are given the opportunity to complete higher education successfully. To\u00a0 that end, a University Equity Team was established. It is comprised of 9 faculty and\u00a0 staff members, 4 of whom are rostered LCMS church workers. The goal is to ensure\u00a0 that student support is given with the firm foundation of fidelity to the Scriptures and\u00a0 Confessions. Counseling is also offered to students by qualified mental health\u00a0 professionals. A part-time mental health professional was listed as \u201cLGBTQ-affirming\u201d\u00a0 on the CTX website. This incorrect notation was corrected to \u201cLGBTQ trained,\u201d\u00a0 indicating to students that the counselor understands these issues and can be trusted\u00a0 with this conversation. Each counselor and staff member at CTX operates according to\u00a0 Lutheran Biblical and Confessional standards. CTX has no intention of being a\u00a0 progressive liberal university and is not moving in the direction of a permissive and\u00a0 confused culture.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The visitation team members\u2019 quotes that \u201cCTX is Lutheran in name only, and they\u00a0 seem to be proud of that fact\u201d and, CTX is \u201ca church growth campus.\u201d <\/em>No\u00a0 ecclesiastical conversations were had about these subjective and offhand\u00a0 observations. CTX is working to grow in outreach so as many people as possible can\u00a0 hear the Gospel and receive the gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ. CTX is very much\u00a0 Lutheran, with many students and staff receiving and confessing the great blessing of\u00a0 grace alone by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. God\u2019s living Word is taught and\u00a0 practiced at CTX. The university is not content to go through Lutheran motions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Science Curriculum. <\/em>The CTX Academic Freedom Policy notes that \u201cA Concordia\u00a0 faculty member will not actively promote a doctrinal position that is in opposition to\u00a0 the doctrinal position of the LCMS.\u201d The broad range of scientific history and theories\u00a0 are taught responsibly, making students aware of other teachings they will encounter without opposing the Biblical creation account.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other questions raised included:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The number of LCMS faculty members at CTX. <\/em>38% of faculty and leadership team\u00a0 members are members of LCMS congregations. This compares favorably to other CUS\u00a0 schools.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 How CTX could remain faithful the LCMS confession if not governed by the LCMS. <\/em>CTX\u00a0 continued to express its desire for a relationship with the LCMS along with theological\u00a0 accountability. CTX has reinforced its doctrinal commitment by including\u00a0 unconditional subscription to the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions in its formation\u00a0 documents.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The professor of Lutheran Identity. <\/em>This professor was a former LCMS pastor who had\u00a0 a deep understanding of and adherence to Lutheran identity. The position is currently\u00a0 vacant.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The Eighth Commandment. <\/em>Unfortunately, each party involved in this disagreement\u00a0 has not consistently put the best construction on everything or explained everything in\u00a0 the kindest way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Conducted by:\u00a0 Key to Abbreviations:\u00a0 Introduction:\u00a0Issues surrounding the relationship of Concordia University…\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5,8,4,17,3,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-congregations-districts-synod","category-leadership","category-legal-matters","category-opinions","category-people-in-the-pews","category-schools-universities-seminaries"],"a3_pvc":{"activated":false,"total_views":20,"today_views":0},"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
Issues surrounding the relationship of Concordia University Texas to The Lutheran Church\u2014 Missouri Synod have become more complex leading up to the 2023 LCMS convention. President\u00a0 Harrison\u2019s reports highlighted several concerns regarding both governance and theological\u00a0 issues. Acting as the ecclesiastical supervisor for the CTX rostered leaders and board of regent\u00a0 members, President Michael Newman launched an investigation of worker actions. The\u00a0 investigation commenced April 5, 2023, following the CTX BOR\u2019s affirmation of its sole\u00a0 governance. In order to conform with LCMS bylaws and Standard Operating Procedures,\u00a0 President Newman invited Texas District First Vice-president John Davis to assist in the\u00a0 investigation for the purpose of avoiding bias in the investigation and reporting process.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n