# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S56
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

56 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

a Fact-Finding Committee to ascertain the doctrinal
position of the members of the faculty of Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis. As many of you know, criticisms
and questions have been voiced for several years about
the theological position of members of this faculty.
I am not here referring to the accusations made in cer-
tain extrasynodical journals, but rather to the fact that
entire District pastoral conferences and District conven-
tions, as well as other responsible groups and indi-
viduals, had expressed great concern about the theo-
logical stance of various members of the faculty.

Although such criticisms have been expressed for
several years, a series of events which involved mem-
bers of the faculty themselves occurred in the last
months of 1969 and early in 1970 which made it impera-
tive for me to determine what the doctrinal situation
at our seminary really was.

Among these events were the following:

1. At a joint meeting of both seminary faculties to-
gether with the Council of Presidents in late 1969, it
became obvious that there were serious disagreements
in the way in which members of the faculties under-
stand the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and its
implication for Biblical interpretation. In addition, a
member of the St. Louis faculty stated that the presup-
positions with which certain members of the faculty
were approaching the Scriptures were not Lutheran.

2. In January 1970 several members of the faculty
in St. Louis were involved in the issuing of “A Call to
Openness and Trust,” a document which the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations later evaluated
as being contrary to the confessional position of the
Synod.

3. In February 1970, the faculties of both seminaries
met jointly and discussed an essay by a member of the
St. Louis faculty. In this meeting a sharp theological
division was evident. The systematics departments of
both seminaries adopted a resolution stating that the
essay undermined the authority of the Scriptures and
confused Law and Gospel.

4. In April, I received a letter from a senior member
of the St. Louis faculty which pointed out theological
problems of such a magnitude as to require the re-
sources of the synodical President’s office to effect a
solution.

Therefore I did not undertake the investigation on
the assumption that anyone was guilty of false doctrine,
but rather to find out what the situation actually was.
If the President of the Synod could be prevented from
asking questions of our professors, who could ever
ask them?

Further information has been supplied to Commit-
tee 2. The report of the Fact-Finding Committee has
been completed and given to the Board of Control of
the seminary and to President Tietjen. I plan to con-
sult in the near future with the Board of Control con-
cerning this report.

The Fact-Finding Committee has submitted to me its
report of its findings. The report is very complete. It

includes a full transcript of the interviews held with 45
professors. It includes an individual summary for each
of these interviews. Beyond this it contains pertinent
information based on a survey of theological literature
and class syllabi produced by the faculty, observations
based on class visits, a study of student periodicals, and
to a limited extent a report on interviews with students.
In the interest of providing an overview of its findings,
the committee has prepared a general summary which
gives a picture of the seminary without identifying in-
dividuals. This summary in turn was condensed to a
tabular presentation showing varying positions held on
doctrinal topics,

It is my sincere prayer that the work of the Fact-
Finding Committee has been of benefit both to the
seminary and to the church. My only desire in this
matter had been that the church have full confidence in
the doctrinal commitment of the seminary faculty and
of the future pastors it prepares,

Before concluding my remarks on doctrinal matters,
permit me to relay to you a proposal conveyed to me
some months ago by the president of one of our colleges.
His proposal is worthy of the consideration and concern
of every one of our pastors, teachers, and congregations.
He proposes that we inaugurate a massive program of
Bible study throughout the Synod. I would like to en-
dorse this proposal and make it my own to our beloved
Synod. The church does not live only by having the
pure doctrine. The mission of the church is to preserve,
use, and spread the means of grace. We have spoken
at great length about the preservation of the means of
grace, and we will be speaking later about our oppor-
tunities to spread the means of grace. But we need to
be reminded constantly that as a church we must also
use the means of grace for our own edification. Our
mission and evangelism outreach will never be effective
unless we ourselves are filled with the Word of God
and empowered by it. Our concerns for purity of doc-
trine are meaningless unless they are directed toward
the use and the love of God’s Holy Word, and ever the
communication of that Word.

Therefore I am asking the Floor Committee on Doc-
trinal Matters also to recommend that the Synod in-
augurate and direct a massive program of Biblical and
theological study at all levels throughout the church,
This can certainly be coordinated with programs of
the Board of Parish Education, but it needs to be a
broader and more comprehensive program than we have
ever conducted. There needs to be personal Bible study
by all our pastors and leaders as well as our lay people.
We must never lose sight of the fact that God feeds us
through His Word, that His Spirit comes to us through
the Word, that above all the assurance of forgiveness
and the hope of life eternal come to us through the use
of His Holy Word.

Another important goal for our Synod during the
next years is to plan a fitting celebration in 1980 of the
anniversaries of the presentation of the Augsburg Con-