Nominees for Concordia Seminary President Announced

[James J Eivan]

Today is October 16, the date the Presidential Search Committee had set
to announce the five finalists. Evidently, they have not reached their goal,
since no news has been released on this matter. 

From CSL web site ....

The committee also discussed how to distribute the materials from the nominees to each committee member and the process they will follow to conduct the first selection round. The committee members also updated their timeline. Their goal is to complete the first selection round by Oct. 16, 2020.

It appears that October 16,2020 was goal for the first ... not final round selection.  The list of finalist is will apparently selected from this first round list.

The selection process was previously outlined here ...

During the next phase of the search, the Presidential Search Committee will evaluate each of the candidates and will recommend at least five candidates from the list of nominees to the four electors. Electors meet Feb. 6, 2021, to elect the new president. The four electors include one vote from the Board of Regents voting as a group, one vote from the LCMS district president serving on the board as a voting member, one vote from the chairman of the LCMS Board of Directors and one vote from the LCMS president. The election of the president requires three of four elector votes.

[Dave Likeness]

My mistake, I thought October 16,  was the Final Five.   I was wrong.
February 6, 2021 is still  more than three months away when the final
candidate is selected..

[James J Eivan]

The search Presidential search process continues ... just completed a zoom based Bible study involving one of the candidates who indicated that a CSL board member would be conducting an in person visit in the near future.

So much for the economies of virtual travel used during the previous search ... it's back to the arcane practice of air plane tickets, hotel, taxi, and restaurant bills.

Given the rather exotic location of this candidate's call, this is more of a junket than anything else given the virtual option .. unless this visit indicates the candidate is on a short list.🤭

Edit: font fluctuations courtesy of software anomalies.🤔

[Brian Stoffregen]

Edit: font fluctuations courtesy of software anomalies.🤔

There are two ways that I deal with this.


One is to highlight the text, then click on "Remove Formatting" icon; sometimes more than once. It is the second from the right in the row of icons above the emojis.


Two is to click on the right-most icon, "Toggle View," which shows the codes, which are between square brackets []. You can delete the ones for font and font size (as well as the corresponding ones to turn off the changes, which have [/].

[FrPeters]

this is more of a junket

Given the seriousness of the task, it is far and away worth the time and money to visit in person.  Zoom is only good for so much -- and I have spent many, many hours on zoom these past months.

[D. Engebretson]

this is more of a junket

Given the seriousness of the task, it is far and away worth the time and money to visit in person.  Zoom is only good for so much -- and I have spent many, many hours on zoom these past months.

I agree on both accounts.  Last week alone I spent no less than four hours in Zoom meetings for the district. Quite burnt out on them. 

[James J Eivan]

this is more of a junket

Given the seriousness of the task, it is far and away worth the time and money to visit in person.  Zoom is only good for so much -- and I have spent many, many hours on zoom these past months.

I agree on both accounts.  Last week alone I spent no less than four hours in Zoom meetings for the district. Quite burnt out on them. 

But that is only part of the story ... how much time would have been spent in transit to and from the meeting(s)? A quick map check indicates that if it was a single meeting at your district office, you gained around an hour and a half not spent in transit ... if the four hours involved multiple meetings, transit time could have been greater.

In the case mentioned here, there is a 4.5 to 5 hour flight each way (assuming no plane change) ... transit to and from the respective airports, the hassle of clearing customs in each direction, not to mention per diem expenses on top of these itemized costs ... cursory estimated cost of $1,000 - $1,500 would be on the conservative side. Unless one is blaming the lack of success of the first round on the virtual environment, it seems that it seems a much better stewardship if time, talent and treasure to build on and improve the virtual process previously used.

While virtual is not a desirable substitute for worship services, may shut ins are thankful the pandemic has made them more available. I've 'attended' 3 voters meetings virtually, a myriad of Bible Classes/Studies including 'sitting at the feet' of two different pastors this fall as they teach their new member classes. No it's not the same as the in person classes ... but without the virtual option probably half of these opportunities would have been missed.

[Birkholz]

The short list will include:
Dr. Gerhard H. Bode Jr.
Dr. Phillip L. Brandt
Dr. Joel C. Elowsky
Dr. Benjamin D. Haupt
Dr. Joel D. Lehenbauer
Dr. David W. Loy
Dr. Gregory P. Seltz

https://www.csl.edu/2020/11/presidential-search-committee-announces-list-of-nominees

[Jim Butler]

The final two candidates are the Rev. Dr. Thomas J. Egger and the Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer.

Dr. Egger is not listed as one of the seven finalists in the post above (also listed in the final search committee report). I'm wondering how his name got there.

[Harry Edmon]

He was added per this part of Synod ByLaw 3.10.5.6.2.  The election will be on February 6th.

(i) At least two weeks before the election, the electors shall finalize the slate of nominees to be interviewed in the election meeting.
(1) The slate is fixed by a majority of the electors, with the members of the board of regents now voting as individuals.
(2) They may add names to the search committee’s list only from the officially published list of nominees, after consultation with the search committee.
(3) The entire board of regents (voting as individuals) shall participate, and the addition or deletion of names shall require a simple majority of all electors and board-of-regents members present. The search committee shall be available to answer questions regarding potential interviewees.
(4) If there are persons placed on the slate who were not on the search committee’s recommendation list, they shall complete all interviews and questionnaires prior to the election.

[Jim Butler]

He was add per this part of Synod ByLaw 3.10.5.6.2.  The election will be on February 6th.

(i) At least two weeks before the election, the electors shall finalize the slate of nominees to be interviewed in the election meeting.
(1) The slate is fixed by a majority of the electors, with the members of the board of regents now voting as individuals.
(2) They may add names to the search committee's list only from the officially published list of nominees, after consultation with the search committee.
(3) The entire board of regents (voting as individuals) shall participate, and the addition or deletion of names shall require a simple majority of all electors and board-of-regents members present. The search committee shall be available to answer questions regarding potential interviewees.
(4) If there are persons placed on the slate who were not on the search committee's recommendation list, they shall complete all interviews and questionnaires prior to the election.

Thanks for that. I think he was a finalist in the first go round. Apparently, some of the electors thought he should considered in this one as well.

[PrTim15]

He was added per this part of Synod ByLaw 3.10.5.6.2.  The election will be on February 6th.

(i) At least two weeks before the election, the electors shall finalize the slate of nominees to be interviewed in the election meeting.
(1) The slate is fixed by a majority of the electors, with the members of the board of regents now voting as individuals.
(2) They may add names to the search committee's list only from the officially published list of nominees, after consultation with the search committee.
(3) The entire board of regents (voting as individuals) shall participate, and the addition or deletion of names shall require a simple majority of all electors and board-of-regents members present. The search committee shall be available to answer questions regarding potential interviewees.
(4) If there are persons placed on the slate who were not on the search committee's recommendation list, they shall complete all interviews and questionnaires prior to the election.

Thanks for this, it takes the conspiracy theory out of it. Everything is political in St. Louis, time to move whole shooting match some where else and restart culture.

[Dave Benke]

To anyone on the outside of the process, there's a clear choice between the two finalists.  Joel Lehenbauer's experience in administering and organizing the theological department of the national church body for a significant period of time, working with faculty of both seminaries through all that time, and gaining an appreciation of the breadth and scope of the Synod and its significant issues of interpretation in so doing are all of far, far greater reach than the experience and wisdom set of Thomas Egger. 

The predecessor, Dale Meyer, was superbly gifted for the tasks he undertook in his administration, and is (my opinion) a tough act to follow, with a more difficult act yet being the diminution of the congregations of Synod needing pastors in general and the specifics of the LCMS world as it will emerge after the pandemic. 

Courage and clarity will be required.  Joel Lehenbauer has been able to navigate the choppy waters of LCMS interactions between the theology on paper and the practice out in the field in an adept and Gospel-centered way.  To me he's far and away the better choice.

Dave Benke

[Weedon]

Hmm. I know and HIGHLY regard both men. And I believe that they each bring gifts that would be of great use to the Church in the formation of seminarians. I don't think there's a "clear choice" at all, except maybe in the area of age. The very nature of it will probably lead to a shorter time as CSL president for Joel than for Tom. Joel is my age; Tom earned his M.Div. in 1997, so eleven or twelve years younger. For one who advocates for the younger voice, I'm a little surprised at your dismissal of Tom! Again, let me reiterate: either is a truly great man, and either will prove a blessing indeed to the Church (as both already have!). Indeed, a win/win situation!

[Dave Benke]

Hmm. I know and HIGHLY regard both men. And I believe that they each bring gifts that would be of great use to the Church in the formation of seminarians. I don't think there's a "clear choice" at all, except maybe in the area of age. The very nature of it will probably lead to a shorter time as CSL president for Joel than for Tom. Joel is my age; Tom earned his M.Div. in 1997, so eleven or twelve years younger. For one who advocates for the younger voice, I'm a little surprised at your dismissal of Tom! Again, let me reiterate: either is a truly great man, and either will prove a blessing indeed to the Church (as both already have!). Indeed, a win/win situation!

Just my opinion, Will.  Tom Rggers didn't as I recall make the final list either the last time or this time (the first time through) so what changed?  What puts him above the other internal candidates, some of whom did make the earlier finalist lists?  These are just straight ahead questions especially with Joel being the other finalist. 

Dave Benke