# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S135
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

RESOLUTIONS 135

ing Committee is crudely dismissed as “garbage in,
garbage out”; its “theology threatens our Synod with
grave danger,” is Dr. Tietjen’s charge, and “is an in-
cipient distortion of the Biblical Gospel of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.” And Dr. Tietjen concludes by
questioning the theology of the President’s committee,
implying that it is less than adequate, because “of what
it [the Report] says about the theology of the Com-
mittee” (p.35). The faculty majority on Sept. 9, 1972,
stated: “We agree with Pres. Tietjen’s letter in response
to the Report and with his analysis of the fact finding
process.”

In that same month (Sept. 18—21, 1972) the Coun-
cil of District Presidents stated that it was “mindful that
the church is deeply troubled at the apparent impasse
in the matter of the seminary investigation” and offered
its assistance in a pastoral way to help adjudicate the
problem. It saw fit to “commend the Board of Control
for its diligence” and to “encourage each of the pro-
fessors of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to assure the
church of his Biblical and confessional stance.” No ref-
erence was made by the District Presidents to the
efforts of Dr. Preus to confront the issues face-on. Also
conspicuous by its absence was any reference to A
Statement, which the President had offered as guide-
line to the seminary Board of Control for its task, and
to the Fact Finding Committee’s “Report” according
to which that board had been mandated (Milw., Res.
2-28) “to take appropriate action.”

Meanwhile a “Study Edition” of A Statement was
compiled by the office of the Executive Secretary of the
CTCR in Nov. 1972. It called attention to the over-
whelmingly favorable response elicited by A Statement
since the time of its appearance. Without changes to the
text of that document, it endeavored merely to amplify
the “number of Biblical and confessional references as
well as citations from various synodical documents —
all without comment—on the matters treated in A
Statement. It should be noted that, while the Council
of Presidents declined to commit itself on A Statement,
and the faculty had already branded it as not only “un-
necessary” and “improper” but also as “inadequate
theologically,” “alien to Lutheran theology,” and “di-
visive,” the response from a grateful church was posi-
tive. It was viewed as an urgently needed response
which addressed the issues by reaffirming on the one
hand the disputed truths on the basis of the Word of
God and which, in true Lutheran fashion, including
antitheses, clearly rejected the new errors circulating
in the church, especially such as had gained some cur-
rency among given faculty members.

It is significant for the church, and particularly for
the delegates assembled at the 50th convention of the
Synod in New Orleans, that the Synod’s Commission on
Theology and Church Relations, seeking to help the
members of Synod see things clearly in the dispute
troubling the church, declared its position as regards
A Statement to be as follows:

We find the doctrinal content of A Statement to be in
accord with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions

and to contain nothing contrary to them. We also find
the doctrinal content of A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles to be in accord with the doctrinal
position of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod as it
has been taught historically and expressed in the official
doctrinal statements of the Synod. [Nov. 21, 1972]
Similar statements of approval have come from every
quarter of the Synod, from individuals, pastors and lay-
men, from congregations, circuits, pastoral conferences,
and whole Districts. The Board of Control of Concor-
dia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Ill, and its fac-
ulty have likewise indicated similar support. Our sis-
ter churches throughout the world have joined their
voices, too, in approval. Negative responses have been
minimal in number and lacking in substantial criticism.
It seemed that A Statement had cleared the air, spelled
out the issues, and prepared the Synod for its testing
theologically at New Orleans.

Meanwhile late in 1972 the St. Louis faculty majority,
responding to the Council of Presidents’ recommenda-
tion, sought to vindicate its position through the pub-
lication of Faithful To Our Calling, Faithful To Our
Lord, an affirmation in two parts. The first and shorter
part represented the joint stance of the faculty (exclud-
ing the “minority five”); the second and longer booklet
provided individual statements by the faculty members.
The latter are by their very nature less significant, since
they are of uneven quality and pertinence over against
the issues. Faithful ...1 is, on the other hand, evidence
of a most crucial nature, particularly because “these
Discussions present positions responsibly taken on the
basis of our Scriptural and Confessional commitment,”
according to the faculty (p. 4). What is here stated
must, therefore, be seen alongside the Fact Finding
Committee’s “Report” and Dr. Preus’ A Statement.
Close examination will reveal that the main issues de-
tailed by the latter two documents are addressed by the
faculty majority in Faithful ... I in such a way as to
leave the matters unresolved. Just recently, May 22,
1973, the faculty majority adopted yet another docu-
ment, titled “Response of the Faculty of Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, to the ‘Report of the Synodical
President.’”” This document serves to reiterate the fac-
ulty’s views as expressed in the Faithful documents,
and, in addition, refuses to recognize the validity of any
of the charges of false teaching.

Preamble

In view of the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution,
Art. II, which binds its membership to unqualified com-
mitment to Holy Scriptures and the Confessions, there
are, in the current controversy, three areas of particu-
lar concern to every member of our church. The first
focuses on the authority of the Scriptural Word. The
second involves the threat to the Gospel through “Gos-
pel reductionism.” And the last involves the matter of
Law and Gospel, not particularly in their distinction,
but as regards a proper view of the function of the Law
under what the Confessions call “the Third Use” of the
Law, as a guide to Christian behavior. Failure to speak
clearly and unequivocally on, or in fact to deny, any