The LCMS Must Recover Institutional Governance Throughout the Synod
Recent problems in the Concordia Universities illustrate cascading governance failures across the Synod. It's time to address them.
Ad Crucem News’s most-read post remains “The Burgeoning Administrative and Cash Flow Crisis for LCMS Congregations.” It has been read, forwarded, and copied thousands of times and remains pertinent to current issues in the wider Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS). Therein, we warned:
The risks for incompetence, waste, fraud, and abuse rise geometrically as congregations become more stressed, ultimately hastening an inglorious end.
Different incompetence stresses instigate breakdowns in large institutions, which is properly understood as the onset of “chronic ethical incontinence.” One manifestation of ethical incontinence is the decay of governance at LCMS universities. The shocking developments at Concordia Portland, Concordia Texas, Concordia Wisconsin, and Concordia Ann Arbor bespeak astonishing governance failures. In some, literal cabals took control and deliberately subverted the governance frameworks, taking advantage of accumulated weaknesses and the typical ossification of aging bureaucracies. Nobody is surprised that the courts are involved.
As a regent of Luther Classical College, Tim serves on the Governance Committee. The committee is tasked with developing, establishing, and maintaining the most robust institutional governance policies, processes, and protocols possible as the college transitions from start-up to first operations. At a recent LCC Board of Regents meeting, Tim presented a high-level overview of governance issues that the College is developing as it transitions from a startup to a functioning academic enterprise. The images below are some of the slides used for the Board presentation.
Everyone should be terrified of having to respond to, “Why didn’t I know about that?” The above worst-case scenario is a consequence of not being 2 Corinthians 1:12 Christians in this life:
For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, and more abundantly toward you.
Having worked and served for over three decades in nearly every type of institution - the military, a giant national trade association, a national newspaper group, a tech IPO, several startups, a private equity fiasco, several churches, and a small non-profit - I have seen two common themes in all governance failures:
The smarter and more senior individuals are, the more self-righteous they will become in denying responsibility and rejecting accountability for governance failures. They will contort themselves in amazing ways to justify why the rules don’t apply to them and that other people and circumstances are to blame - or everyone else is too stupid to know how things should work. This desire for personal gain is always rooted in a struggle to control Ninth and Tenth Commandments matters. They develop confusion/amnesia about who really owns and controls the assets they are stewarding. They effortlessly dismiss the sacrifices and investments that got the institution to its current place, and they confound their personal greed and ambition for the purpose of the institution and its legacy.
Subordinates caught up in a governance failure are often the victims of miscommunication or a lack of governance training and reinforcement. Senior managers can be expected to know and understand governance requirements explicitly and implicitly. Junior staff can never be expected to have the same grasp and must be trained repeatedly and regularly to know and act on governance issues.
Governance is inherently a risk management exercise. Synod institutions should have a huge headstart on secular organizations because they benefit from homogeneous origination—Christian, LCMS Lutheran, American, and a cohesive ethnic founding group. By contrast, a “diverse and inclusive” organization is a ticking time bomb because truth is relative, and there is no baseline to maintain and enforce a common moral and ethical framework.
There is considerable evidence that pursuing diversity at the Concordias has abated their governance. By setting aside strict theological requirements for students and faculty, the Concordias brought into their organizations several different spirits that have now manifested. As a Synod, we must be transparent and accountable to acknowledge how and why these institutions were allowed to go increasingly rogue for so long. It is a failure at multiple levels over several decades, but it starts with every Regent who either ignored or enabled the problems (did they even read the Board packs before the meetings…?).
Good governance is not about creating a police state but protecting our neighbors' lives and reputations. Good governance can save them from the follies common to this life. We should be concerned about removing and minimizing the temptations we are all prone to.
Therefore God wishes the reputation, good name, and upright character of our neighbor to be taken away or diminished as little as his money and possessions, that every one may stand in his integrity before wife, children, servants, and neighbors.
The Book of Concord - The Large Catechism, The Eighth Commandment
The most important factor in achieving good governance is that subordinates understand that the senior executive officer is accountable for failures. He will exhibit a Godly fear for his job that will automatically transmit through an organization. Subordinates are very attuned to recognizing a man of high or low integrity within minutes of meeting them. If the senior officer is arrogant and below reproach in small things, the organization will respond in kind. Think of the rule of thumb about marital fidelity - the man who cheats on his wife cannot be trusted with the cash register, no matter how repentant he seems. We forgive, but we take preventative measures until the world is remade by the Lord Jesus.
A common cause of governance breakdowns is when non-executive directors interfere in an institution's day-to-day management. They often think they are helping, but it’s the opposite. Directors (Regents, District Presidents, COP, etc.) are elected to exercise high-level oversight and provide “strategic wisdom.” When there is interference, the managers quickly understand that they are not trusted to do what they were hired to do, and they will develop a shielding “negative culpability” response.
Nearly every governance failure is discovered to start with a conflict of interest that was ignored, minimized, or overridden. Conflicts of interest should be a constant concern for boards and managers - it is impossible to overstate the care that should be taken with them to the point of near obsession.
We in the LCMS and our churches cannot pretend there has not been a material erosion of governance across the board, resulting in a total collapse in several cases. We have become indifferent to the responsibilities that come with authority because positions are filled as a matter of process but without adequate vetting and due diligence.
Overall, the LCMS needs to look hard at all its institutions and how they are staffed, managed, and overseen. If it ever gains traction, it will be a multi-year project. Still, it is desperately needed as the skills and time commitment available to the Synod continue to shrink for the foreseeable future.
Ready for a head exploder? The LCMS's polity is structurally deficient in properly managing its institutions, which are embedded in a mega institution riven by politics and factionalism due to the autonomous district structure. On top of that, the clergy has default executive authority, but very few pastors have the training, experience, skills, capacity, and even common sense for those roles. We suffer frustrating assumptions about a clerical collar, especially the PhD version, imbuing the OHM with unearthly powers of organization and business acumen. Consequently, many clergy serve in organizational roles for which they are entirely unsuited and ill-equipped.
Everyone serving on LCMS boards, including at the RSOs, must take stock. Are you adding value? Are you taking your duties and responsibilities seriously; do you even know what they are? Do you prepare for meetings properly and try to digest the material to ask the right questions, or are you just an agenda browser? If you don’t have the capacity to do your work properly, please resign. Nobody will think ill of you, and you will be helping your peers and the organization. Likewise, chairmen of the many boards must grow a spine and fire the loafers and leeches.