# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 11 12 1975_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
April 11-12, 1975 - St. Louis, Missouri
404. Klotz opened the meeting with prayer. All members were present. The secretary explained that
Elmer Luessenhop had been compelled to resign from the Commission upon orders of his physician and
that Dr. Carl Eberhard had been appointed on short notice to fill the unexpired term until the end of the
current calendar year. He was warmly welcomed to the Commission. The Commission resolved to send a
letter of appreciation to Luessenhop and also joined in a special prayer for him led by the secretary. The
minutes of the previous meeting were adopted as submitted.
405. Protest re Tietjen Referral (AQ. 761-P,Q,R,S): After reading the protest filed by President Harold
Hecht of the English District and a few other letters received on the subject, the Commission resolved to
inform President Hecht that it had reviewed his letter and other materials and had decided to stand by its
ruling. However, the Commission wished to point out an error on page three of his letter where he
assumes that the Commission had looked upon the transmission of the Tietjen case materials as "a new
charge" when in reality the Commission had concluded that it was a continuation of the same case. The
Commission also decided to say that it was surprised at his apparent desire to rule on this case, that this
sounded like a prejudgment on his part, and that the Commission had tried to avoid such prejudgments.
Prevallet agreed to finalize the last comments. (Klotz abstained).
406. Questions re Tietjen Case (Ag. 809, 809-A and D): The Board of Control placed before the
Commission five different questions which the Commission answered in the following way:
1.

As required by the Bylaws, the Board has forwarded to the District President of the accused
the "charge" (Bylaw 6.79, 1) or "accusation" (Bylaw 5.11), the findings of the Board of
Control, the transcript of the proceedings, and all supporting documents. In the remaining
procedures of this case as they are outlined in the February 21 opinion of the CCM, does
the Board of Control have the role of accuser, witness, observer, some other role, or no role
whatsoever? In what way does the Board's role in the remaining procedures make it a
"party of the proceeding" (Bylaw 5.31, j)?

Answer: a. It is impossible to define the terms in the question without the context of a given fact situation.
b. The Board of Control has been involved in the proceedings and therefore comes under the phrase "any
party" in the bylaw.
2. The Board of Control has endured grave accusations of unchristian conduct, with resultant injury to the
name and reputation of Board members. Do the limitations on publicity permit the Board an opportunity
to defend itself, or to deal with its accusers in keeping with the provisions of the Eighth Commandment?
Answer: As of this moment it would not be proper to initiate discussion of those charges against Dr.
Tietjen which could lead to expulsion from the Synod. Other matters may be discussed.
3.

The limitations on publicity apparently prevent the Board of Control from providing the 1975
synodical convention with sufficient information for the convention to respond to any overture it
may receive on the matter. Is this a correct understanding? If so, does this mean that the
synodical convention cannot entertain any overtures on the Tietjen case?