# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1992_S196
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

LATE REPORTS AND OVERTURES

deavor faithfully:to perform all duties of your office as
stipulated in the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod and in accordance with the doc-
trines of Holy Scripture as set forth in the Confessions of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and will you adorn the
Gospel of Jesus Christ with a godly life?”; and

Wuereas, Pursuant to Bylaw 6.01 a 2 one of the mem-
bers of the Board of Regents of Concordia Theological Sem-
inary—Fort Wayne includes “a Vice-President of the Synod
designated by the President of the Synod” and pursuant
to this Bylaw Dr. Bohlmann appointed Dr. Mennicke to
the Board of Regents (BOR) of Concordia Theological Sem-
inary—Fort Wayne (CTS); and |

Wuereas, The BOR of CTS adopted a resolution by ma-
jority vote on July 27, 1989, forcibly retiring the Rev. Dr.
Robert D. Preus from his position as president of CTS; and

Wuereas, Dr. Preus challenged this decision of the ma-
jority members of the BOR by presenting the matter to the
synodical adjudicatory bodies; and

Wuereas, The synodical Commission on Appeals

(COA), pursuant to its authority under chapter VIII of the *

Bylaws, concluded that “the BOR majority had sinned
against Dr. Preus and had taken from Dr. Preus his good
name, his honor, and his position by show of right, all in
violation of the Eighth and Ninth Commandments” and
that Dr. Preus was not properly.retired as president of
CTS, and that if Dr. Preus is reinstated to membership in
good standing on the clergy roster of the LCMS, he is to
be restored at that time to the office and duties of president
of CTS; and

Wuereas, Both the synodical Commission on Adjudi-
cation (SCA) and COA noted in their decisions regarding
this matter that Dr. Preus had called President Bohlmann
on July 27, 1989 before the BOR took its action forcibly
retiring Dr. Preus and asked Dr. Bohlmann for his help,
but “President Bohlmann said there was nothing he could
do for him” (SCA decision, p. 4; COA decision of Oct. 19,
1991, p. 5); and

Wuereas, Bylaw 8.69 provides that “all final decisions
of the Commission on Appeals of the Synod and all an-
appealed decisions of the Commission on Adjudication
_ shall be binding upon all parties to the case and not subject
to review, reversal, amendment, or modification, any pro-
vision to the contrary in the Bylaws notwithstanding”; and

Wuereas, The decision of the COA concluding that Dr.
Preus was not properly removed as president of CTS and
that Dr. Preus shall be restored to his position and duties
as president of CTS upon being restored to good standing

in the clergy roster-of the LCMS is a final and binding

decision pursuant to. Bylaw 8.69; and

Wuereas, A majority of the BOR, including First Vice-
President August Mennicke, adopted a resolution stating
that it will not “honor or obey the ruling of the synodical
Commission on Appeals purporting to reinstate Dr. Preus”;
and :

Wuereas, Dr. Bohlmann has never committed to hon-
oring or obeying the final and binding decisions of the COA
regarding Dr. Preus and has implied he concurs with the
statement of the majority of the BOR that it will not “honor
or obey the ruling” of the COA; and

195

Wuereas, The refusal of Dr. Mennicke and Dr. Bohl-
mann to “honor or obey” the final and binding decisions of
the COA is in violation of the Bylaws of the LCMS, in-
cluding Bylaws 8.07, 8.69, and 8.75, as well as the objec-
tives of the Synod as expressed in Art. III and XI of the
Constitution; and

Wuereas, Bylaw 1.05 d provides, in part, “individual
members, commit themselves as members of the Synod to
act in accordance with the synodical Constitution and By-
laws under which they have agreed to live and work to-
gether and which the congregations alone have the
authority to adopt or amend through conventions”; and
‘  Wuereas, Bylaw 2.39 a provides, “The Constitution, By-

laws, and all other rules and regulations of the Synod shall
apply to all congregational and individual members of the
.Synod. The Synod expects [all members] to honor its rules
‘and regulations”; and ;
' Wiereas, Bylaw 2.39 c provides, in part, “While re-
taining the right to brotherly dissent, members of the
Synod are expected as part of the life together within the
synodical fellowship to honor and to uphold the resolutions
of the Synod”; and

Wuereas, Bylaw 2.35 provides, “Every member of the
Synod shall diligently and earnestly promote the purposes
of the Synod by word and deed”; and

Wuereas, Chapter VI of the Bylaws provides that the
Boards of Regents are “subject to general policies set by
ithe Synod” (Bylaw 6.01) and are to “become familiar with
,and develop an understanding of pertinent synodical and
‘Board for Higher Education Services policies, standards,
and guidelines” (Bylaw 6.03 a); and

Wuerzas, Bylaw 3.69 m provides, “All boards and com-
missions shall be responsible and accountable for their ac-
tivities to the President of the Synod (Art. XI, B, 1-4)
‘between conventions of the Synod and ultimately to the
Synod in convention (Art. XI, A, 1-2)”; and

Wuereas, Art. XI, B, 2 provides, “It is the President’s
iduty to see to it that all the aforementioned act in accor-
dance with the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who
‘in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is not

. heeded, to report such cases to the Synod”; and
| Whereas, Art. XI, B, 3 of the Constitution provides,
“The President has and always shall have the power to
advise, admonish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously
‘use all means at his command to promote and maintain
unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of the
‘Synod”; and
| Whereas, Art. XI, B, 4 provides, “The President shall
see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out”,
Wuereas, Bylaw 1.07 b provides, “Elected officers serve
the Synod in accordance with duties assigned to them or
otherwise authorized by the Constitution and appropriate
‘Bylaws. Primary responsibility is given to each officer, to
the extent of his jurisdiction, for implementing specific de-
cisions of the appropriate conventions, boards, and com-
missions and for supervising and coordinating the day-to-
day activities of the respective staffs”; and
Wuereas, Despite repeated requests, both Dr. Bohl-
mann and Dr. Mennicke have failed to carry out their re-