# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S267
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

HIGHER EDUCATION 267

meet with Mr. Braun in order to discuss with him the
charges made against the professors.

The committee carefully analyzed the charges made
against the faculty members. All the pertinent essays
and articles alleged to contain wrong teachings were
screened, and all statements quoted by Mr. Braun in
his brochure were studied in their context. The com-
mittee then made contact with each professor involved
and asked him to respond to the specific accusations
made against him by Mr. Braun. All the faculty mem-
bers cooperated and answered the committee’s in-
quiries. The committee was satisfied that it would be
possible to demonstrate to Mr. Braun’s satisfaction that
there had been no deviation from Biblical teachings.

Between May and August 1968 the committee made
repeated efforts to meet with Mr. Braun in a fraternal
setting to discuss his charges in a personal and pastoral
manner. At first Mr. Braun accepted the invitation
extended to him on May 16, 1968. In his letter of May
23, 1968, he wrote, “May I say further that I do sin-
cerely appreciate the Christian spirit in which this in-
vitation has been extended and want you to know
that I am accepting it in the same spirit.”

Mr. Braun accepted July 5, 1968, as the date and
the Lutheran Building at 210 North Broadway, St. Louis,
Mo., as the place of meeting. In its letter of May 16
the committee had suggested that Mr. Braun might
want to invite his pastor and his Circuit Counselor to
accompany him. Mr. Braun consulted with them, in-
vited them, and they agreed to attend with him. Then
Mr. Braun indicated that he desired to invite two other
unidentified persons to attend with him and stated that
it would be satisfactory with him if the seminary sub-
committee invite the professors involved and include
additional board members.

On June 4, 1968, the committee wrote again to Mr.
Braun, restating the purpose and intent of the proposed
meeting, which was to be a discussion conducted in
a spirit of brotherly love and mutual concern. It was
not to be a hearing, trial, or debate. Furthermore, since
Mr. Braun was the sole publisher of the brochure
containing the charges, since it was distributed over
his signature alone, and since he himself accepted sole
responsibility, the committee wished to meet personally
and discuss the charges in an evangelical manner with
Mr. Braun together with his pastor and Circuit Coun-
selor, whom he had invited. Enlarging the meeting
would serve no useful purpose.

In his reply of June 12, 1968, Mr. Braun for the first
time named the previously unidentified persons he
wanted to have in his company at the meeting on July 5.
They were Rev. Herman Otten of New Haven, Mo.,
and Dr. John C. Baur of St.Louis, Mo. Mr. Braun
further stated that he preferred to have these men
rather than his pastor and Circuit Counselor as his
“witnesses.” One of the reasons offered for this pref-
erence was: “Some of my documentation came from
Rev. Otten’s files.”

On June 24, 1968, the committee reviewed the ex-

change of letters and reminded Mr. Braun of the fol-
lowing:
1. He (Mr. Braun) had on May 23 accepted our in-
vitation to attend the meeting on July 5.

2. He had originally invited his pastor and Counselor.

3. He and not any other person or persons was the
one with whom the committee wished to speak,
since he alone had written, published, and signed
the charges and since he alone was responsible
for the distribution of his brochure.

The committee also offered to send a list of discussion
questions to Br. Braun in advance of the July 5 meeting,
if he desired them, and made it clear that the Board of
Control would be willing for valid reasons to arrange
for a separate and later meeting with Rev. Herman
Otten and Dr. John C. Baur. The committee did not
think it would be proper or useful to have them present
at the July 5 meeting, which was to be held, and
was clearly described, as being in the interest of mutual
understanding and fraternal consultation.

In a brief letter of June 24, 1968, Mr. Braun indicated
that, unless the committee consented to the presence
of Rev. Herman Otten and Dr. John C. Baur and notified
him of that consent by July 3, he would assume that
the July 5 meeting was cancelled,

On the very next day, June 25, 1968, Mr. Braun
reaffirmed his position regarding this choice of partici-
pants and asked for the list of preparatory questions
which the committee had offered. He assured the com-
mittee that he personally accepted the responsibility of
his statements, and he indicated that if he did not
eppear in person for the July 5 meeting he would still
answer the questions in writing.

The committee, still sincerely hoping that Mr. Braun
might come for the July 5 meeting, complied with his
request, and on July 1 mailed him 36 discussion ques-
tions. They were sent to him as a courtesy and were
designed to pave the way for fruitful and fraternal
discussion. The questions were not sent to be answered
in writing but were sent to indicate the specific issues
the committee desired to discuss.

On July 1, 1968, Mr. Braun wrote that, if the com-
mittee would not welcome Rev. Herman Otten and
Dr. John C. Baur at the discussion, then he would
presume that the committee would cancel the meeting.

A few days before the scheduled July 5 meeting,
Mr. Braun telephoned the chairman of the committee.
The chairman informed Mr. Braun that the committee
had no intention of canceling the meeting but would be
ready at the appointed hour. Mr. Braun, although he
had originally welcomed and accepted the invitation to
discussion on July 5, 1968, failed to appear.

Two weeks later a pamphlet of 22 pages entitled
Answers to Questions Submitted on July 1, 1968, to
Marcus R. Braun by a Special Subcommittee of the
Board of Control, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mis-
sourt, was mailed by Mr. Braun to the special committee
and to others.

The committee concerned itself primarily with Part