# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1992_S72
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

72 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

in five of eight specific charges included in our complaint
sent to Indiana District President Reuben Garber on Jan.
31, 1991.

We strongly disagree with, and are deeply saddened by,
the decision of the COA, not because Dr. Preus has been
restored to the clergy roster of the Synod by that decision,
but because we believe it is a decision that is harmful to
Dr. Preus spiritually and to the church in general.

We brought our complaint against Dr. Preus after ob-
serving, over a period of 17 months following his honorable
‘retirement, a course of conduct by him that we believe was
sinful. Our purpose in doing so was not to expel Dr. Preus
from clergy membership in the Synod, but rather to seek
the assistance of the Synod’s formal disciplinary process
in bringing Dr. Preus to recognize the wrongful nature of
his actions, to accept responsibility for the consequences
of his actions, and to seek his repentance. The complaint
was lodged with District President Garber only following
repeated attempts by us to counsel with Dr. Preus, to ad-
monish him personally, and to seek his repentance.

Following his retirement by the Board of Regents (the
BOR) of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, on
July 27, 1989, Dr. Preus acted in a manner which, in our
judgment, was unbecoming a fellow Christian and re-
quired his correction. One can readily understand Dr.
Preus’ frustration when he was honorably retired as pres-
ident of Concordia Theological Seminary on July 27, 1989.
But his conduct as he endeavored to reverse that decision
was a cause of grave concern to the Praesidium.

With what sins did we charge Dr. Preus? In our formal
complaint, we described it as “conduct unbecoming a Chris-
tian” and noted two categories of misconduct: a persistent
pattern of untruthfulness and unbrotherly conduct toward
other Christians. .

The latter category, we believe, is seen in his use of the
civil authorities without first exhausting all personal and
ecclesiastical means to handle his concerns, in his treat-
ment of two District Presidents, and especially in his lack
of cooperation and participation in informal reconciliation
efforts. .

Even before his retirement was to become effective on
Aug. 15, 1989, Dr. Preus had taken two civil actions. One
was a complaint against the BOR, filed with the Federal
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming
that age discrimination was the real reason for his retire-
ment. Another was Dr. Preus’ request for a court injunction
to prevent the BOR from filling the presidency before he
completed his attempts to regain the presidency through
the Synod’s adjudicatory processes. Seven months later,
Dr. Preus filed suit again, this time against the Synod
itself, as well as its President and other officers, alleging
that they had acted in concert to deny him access to the
Synod’s adjudicatory processes. In none of these cases did
‘Dr. Preus first attempt to resolve his concerns through
personal or ecclesiastical avenues available to him.

Dr. Preus declined requests to participate in the Synod’s
informal reconciliation process as provided in Bylaw 8.05,
even failing to respond to letters of fraternal concern from
the synodical President for a period of nearly eight months.
He did not cooperate in the earnest efforts of a small rec-

onciliation committee formed to resolve his differences
with the BOR, and failed, when asked, to provide nominees
to that committee.

In his efforts to regain the seminary presidency, Dr.
Preus took other actions against his brethren that, in our
judgment, were not fraternal, as, for example, when he
lashed out at two District Presidents and inappropriately
shared his letters of accusation with others in their Dis-
tricts. We concluded that his basic error of unbrotherly
conduct was in circulating those letters and in taking his
three civil actions without first presenting his concerns
directly to his brethren, or giving the Synod’s processes
adequate opportunity to handle his complaints.

During this same period of time (August 1989 through
December 1990) we perceived Dr. Preus making public
statementa that were either harmfully misleading or that
we believed to be untrue. In all three of his civil actions,
we perceived that Dr. Preus misrepresented the facts, as,
for example, when he told the court that the Synod’s Pres-
ident and legal counsel had told him he could not regain
the seminary presidency, even if he won his case in ad-
judication. His claim that his age was the real motive for
the BOR’s retirement action, as well as his charge that
synodical officials had acted to deny him access to syn-
odical adjudication, were both vigorously denied by all of-
ficials involved.

We viewed Dr. Preus as making harmfully misleading
statements. He wrote a letter, published in Alive, which
created the false impression that the synodical President
refused to meet with him, when an informal reconciliation
committee had previously informed him of Dr. Bohlmann’s
willingness to meet. A letter he wrote to the synodical Com-
mission on Adjudication also distorted the truth by, for
example, implying that Dr. Bohlmann and Dr. Mennicke
refused to participate in informal reconciliation and that
they planned quickly to call a new president to the Fort
Wayne seminary.

Throughout a period of 17 months, from August 1989
to January 1991, the President, often in consultation with
the Vice-Presidents, made numerous direct and personal
efforts to reach Dr. Preus with concerns about his conduct,
as did individual Vice-Presidents. Many of these efforts
were ignored, resisted, or rejected out of hand. One such
meeting took place in July 1990; but accomplished little.
When Dr. Preus wrote in late November 1990 that rec-
onciliation efforts were pointless, another meeting planned
for January 1991 was canceled.

In December 1990, when it appeared to us that Dr.
Preus’ conduct had become more erratic and disruptive and
also that he was increasingly difficult to reach, Dr. Preus’
District President visited with Dr. Bohlmann about the
need to confront Dr. Preus in a strong way about his per-
ceived misconduct, and a meeting was arranged for that
purpose in January 1991. On Jan. 3, the Praesidium also
reviewed the latest examples of Dr. Preus’ conduct and
encouraged a disciplinary approach to Dr. Preus that
might help him to recognize the seriousness of his actions
and repent. Our chief concern was for Dr. Preus’ own spir-
itual condition, and secondarily for the example his con-
duct was giving the church. ,