# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S100
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

100 SEMINARY ISSUES

from their reading of the materials of the Fact Finding
Committee Report that individual faculty members were
teaching in accord with the Scriptures and the Confessions
and therefore had little or nothing to ask in the interviews.
Other board members had concerns and problems as a re-
sult of their review of the Fact Finding materials which
they pursued in the interviews.

Summaries of the interviews were prepared in consulta-
tion with the faculty member interviewed to provide a
record of the interview. The summaries are attached to the
protocol copy of the minutes of the meeting at which the in-
terviews were held. The summaries present in digest form
the responses of faculty members to specific questions
raised by some board members; they are not summaries of
the total theological position of the professors.

In the course of the interviews the Board of Control gave
special attention to the doctrinal position of President John
H. Tietjen and to his supervision of the teaching of the
faculty. The board had conducted an extensive interview
with President Tietjen already in October of 1971. The board
conducted additional interviews with him in October and
November of 1972. In addition the board had the opportunity
to hear from him from time to time in the course of the in-
terviews with faculty members, since he was present for all
the interviews,

II. Action of the Board
Having carefully studied the Fact Finding Committee Re-

port, having isolated the Major issues on the basis of the

members for whom interviews were deemed desirable, the
Board of Control at its meeting January 15, 1973, took action
as directed by Milwaukee Res. 2-28, “commending or cor-
recting where necessary.”

The board agreed on the following procedure by which
to take action. It decided to review the position of each

an individual professor the board resolved to act on him by
casting a secret ballot either to commend him or to correct
him. The board decided that, should it vote to correct a
professor, it would then formulate precisely what correc-
tion should be given.

The board gave a specific definition to the words “com-
mend” and “correct.” It agreed that “to commend" was
equivalent to stating that the professor was not guilty of
false doctrine but was teaching in accord with the Serip-
tures and the Confessions, “To commend” did not neces-
sarily mean agreement with all of his exegetical or historical
views, nor was it intended to be descriptive of his work or
effectiveness as a classroom teacher, “To correct” was the

of the Question. “What Is a Doctrine?”

The Board of Control voted by ballot individually on 44
members of the faculty. It resolved not to vote on three
members of the faculty, Lucille Hager, Eldon Pederson, and

Kenneth Siess, since the Fact Finding Committee had de-

meeting on Sept. 18, 1972, following an interview with Prof.
Arthur Carl Piepkorn, it had voted to commend Dr, Piep-
korn and had declared that it was satisfied with his explana-
tion of his doctrinal position. The board decided not to vote
on three professors who had been interviewed by the Fact
Finding Committee: Walter J. Bartling. since he had ac-
cepted a call and was no longer a member of the faculty:
Arlis J. Ehlen, since his reappointment to the faculty had
been declined by the Board for Higher Education: and Carl

Meyer, since he had died and gone to his eternal rest.
By majority action the board voted to commend 44 pro-
essors,

The full list of professors then commended by the board
follows: Mark P, Bangert, Robert R. Bergt, Robert W.

neth H, Breimeier, Richard R. Caemmerer, Robert L, Con-
rad, John W. Constable, John S. Damm, Frederick W.
Danker, William J. Danker, David E. Deppe, Alfred O. Fuer-

bringer, Paul F, Goetting, Carl Graesser, Robert A. Grunow,
Norman C. Habel, George W. Hoyer, Holland H. Jones,
Everett R. Kalin, Wi Jo Kang, Richard Klann, Ralph W.
Klein, Edgar M. Krentz, Paul G. Lessmann, Erwin L. Lueker,
Herbert T. Mayer, Duane P. Mehl, Arthur Carl Piepkorn,

Smith, Gilbert A. Thiele, John H. Tietjen, Arthur M. Vincent,
Carl A. Volz, Walter Wegner, Robert J, Werberig, Andrew
M. Weyermann, Leonhard C. Wuerffel, Lorenz Wunderlich.

By resolution of the board the results of the balloting are
in the protocol copy of the minutes and are available to
the President of the Synod.

III. Observations

It should be noted that the action which is here being
reported is action of the Board of Control. As with the ac-
tion of all boards, Majority vote determined the board's
final decision. On the basis of the interviews a majority of
the board's members and so therefore the board concluded
that the faculty members believe and confess in accord with
the Scriptures and the Confessions and are carrying out
their professed commitments to the Scriptures as rule and
norm of faith and of practice and to the Lutheran Confes-
sions as a true exposition of the Word of God.

As it stated in its Progress Report, the Board of Control
is well aware that there are theological issues both at the
seminary and throughout the Synod which must be dealt
with in fraternal discussion. The board intends to arrange
for continuing discussion between it and the seminary fac-
ulty through further meetings with faculty members, The
board hopes and prays that through fraternal discussion
within both the seminary and the Synod we will continue to
be faithful to the truth of God's Word and will maintain the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

With the prayer that we sinners may be reconciled to
God and to one another through our heavenly Father’s
reconciling work in Christ, the Board of Control submits to
the Synod this report of its action taken in compliance with
Milwaukee convention Res. 2-28 and commends the report to
Him who alone builds His church,

Boarp or ContROL
Concorpia Seminary, Sr. Louis
John Tietjen, Executive Officer

3-01B

Report of Some Members of Board
of Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis

Supplementing
Report of Board of Control of Concordia Seminary,
St. Louis, to The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod, the President of the Synod, and the Board
for Higher Education on Action Taken in Response
to the Directive of the Synod in Milwaukee
Convention Resolution 2-28

It ought to be self-evident that what a professor of
theology at a seminary of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod teaches in his classroom or otherwise publicly writes
or talks about which has theological implications is not a
private matter. To the contrary, what is taught in the
classroom is of the very essence and lifeblood of our Synod.
The classroom and the seminary are quite obviously not
something which belongs to a professor or a group of pro-
fessors but are the Synod’s and it therefore follows that
neither the classroom nor the seminary is a proper forum
for the propagation of individual theories that may be at
divergence with, or in some cases in opposition to, the con-
fessional position of the Synod.

“To act contrary to conscience is equivalent to acting
contrary to faith and sinning grievously” (What Luther
Says, An Anthology, Plass, Ewald, Concordia, 1959, Vol. I,
p. 334). The following report by the undersigned is one
that is compelled by the dictates of conscience and love of
our God and our Synod. In a matter so vitally affecting the
doctrine and life of our dear Synod, the Synod has the