# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S106
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

106 SEMINARY ISSUES

We are informed that Ernst & Ernst are still the auditors for
Synod and, even though the seminary is audited by Synod
internally, there is absolutely no reason to scuttle the very
highly desirable installation of a proper accounting svstem.
Although the president informed the board that he and the
Business Manager would follow through with the establish-
ment of a proper accounting system, to date we have no evi-
dence that this has been done.

We are aware that because of this report to you we may
be castigated by the seminary president because it has been
done before. When two members of the board indicated
their intent for conscience reasons to issue a minority re-
port to the Synod regarding the doctrinal situation of the
seminary, the seminary president told them openly, among
other things, that if they did this over his objections he
would question their competence to continue to serve on the
board. One of these men is a veteran clergyman of over 35
years and a vice-president of the Synod and the other is
a corporation lawyer.

A number of the members of the Board of Control are
concerned about the practice of awarding honorary degrees
or other tributes. This is done by the faculty alone without
consultation with the board. Some members of the board
have endeavored to correct this practice by trying to per-
suade the seminary president to at least clear this through a
committee of the board as we understand is done in many
other of our synodical institutions. This vear, for the first
time, the board was informed of the candidates for the hon-
orary degrees and awards, but only after the recipients of
the degrees and awards had been previously informed of the
faculty’s action.

It should be remembered that, of 11 board members,
five are laymen, one is a teacher, and five are pastors. Of the
five pastors, four have been given honorary degrees by the
faculty of the seminary and three of those four received
honorary degrees while in active service on the Board of
Control. Men would be more than human not to be in-
fluenced by such favors from the faculty.

You may surely be tempted to inquire as to why the
board has not remedied some of these irregularities which
have been discussed. Surely resolutions could have been
passed and effective control of the seminary resumed. This
is a legitimate point. Perhaps this can be answered by
analyzing the makeup of the board as discussed above. Par-
ticularly when it is remembered that the chairman of the
board, a recipient of an honorary doctorate, votes on all
matters crucial to the wishes of the seminary administration.
Moreover, he was recommended as a delegate to the 1971
Milwaukee convention by the seminary president without
giving the board time to discuss its independent choice. The
chairman, in turn, practically assured the additional ap-
pointment of the vice-chairman as an additional delegate of
his choice who happened to be up for reelection and from
the chairman’s own District, the Florida-Georgia District,
thereby restricting a wider synodical representation. In the
interest of good stewardship it would have been advisable to
send but one delegate and to choose a board member who
lives in Chicago, just 90 miles from Milwaukee. The same
procedure has been followed for the appointment of the
delegate to the New Orleans convention and the same man
selected, the board chairman. Again and again, individual
board members have raised their voices in complaint but
with no results.

We would strongly recommend that the procedures for
the election of the seminary president, as presently pre-
scribed by the Handbook, be changed so that he is not hand-
picked by the seminary faculty. In the last election the
names of many oustanding and capable men were nominated
but the faculty committee zeroed in on only five of their
choice. The electors were that in name only and were re-
stricted in choosing only from those recommended by the
faculty.

Concerning procrastination on certain major issues,
charges of differences in “basic theology” and false doctrine
have been brought by the faculty minority five. The board
has had this item before it since 1971, but has yet to take
definitive action. We are concerned that this matter may have
been delicately delayed as it has, so as not to face the
charges head on. These minority five are high in the esteem
of the entire church. One of them is on leave from the fac-
ulty to serve as Executive Secretary of the Commission on

Theology and Church Relations. Could a higher evalua-
tion by his contemporaries of his theological integrity be
placed on him?

In June of 1972, several pastors brought to the attention
of the board a report of a slanderous statement and false
doctrine by a professor of the Seminary. It, in our opinion
was well documented and subsequently substantiated. The
board delayed consideration, took no action of its own, and
finally was content to be persuaded by the president of the
seminary to let the matter be referred to the District Presi-
dent in the District where the man was lecturing at the time
of the offense. The matter, now in the jurisdiction of the
Missouri District of which the reverend brother was a mem-

er, remains unresolved to this day and the board itself
would not take any form of disciplinary action.

There is also good reason to believe that the Board of
Control should have actively explored the right it has to
appeal the action of the American Association of Theo-
logical Schools in placing the seminary on probation. There
is good reason to believe that the action of the AATS was
unduly harsh and could still be successfully appealed. How-
ever, the Board of Control to date has taken no initiative in
the matter. What, in our opinion, further clouds this action
is the fact that a member of the Executive Committee of
the AATS and the then vice-president of our seminary were
one and the same person.

The Board of Control also refused the advice of the syn-
odical President and the persistent pleading of several of its
own members that its interviews with the seminary profes-
sors be recorded on tape or by a stenographer. The single
exception was in the case of the testimony of the faculty mi-
nority. Now that the board has by a majority vote cleared
all professors of false doctrine, many constituents are ques-
tioning this decision. No doubt the appropriate floor com-
mittee of the New Orleans convention will ask for a record
of the board's interviews. However, there is none to give.
The board not only agreed with the seminary president and
some board members that no tapes were to be made, but
the secretary of the board was forbidden to carry out his
normal responsibility of making a record of the proceedings.
Instead, again by persuasion of the seminary president, the
seminary president and the professor interviewed prepared
a brief summary of the interview. This was returned to the
board for correction or additions, but in the absence of a
complete record little could be done to present a full picture.
We are deeply disturbed by the manner in which the board
reported to the church the results of its study. It was stated
that a “majority” of the board agreed that no member of the
faculty was guilty of false doctrine. We agree wholeheartedly
that in matters involving the routine operation of the semi-
nary, a majority vote is acceptable and good with no more
said about it. However, even in business matters one hesi-
tates to take action when the vote is so close. But in this
particular instance the board is also dealing with matters
where the church is entitled to know that there was great
division on the board. It is of great concern to us that the
church is told of a “majority” clearance of all professors
when, in fact. five professors were given a 6-5 vote of clear-
ance (including the vote of the chairman of the board).
Three other professors were cleared only by a two-vote
margin. We recommend that you examine the complete tally
of the votes which can be found in the files of the board
secretary. It is sheer honesty that the church must know
that this vast division of opinion exists on the board. In a
way the board has functioned as a court in this matter. And
when judges dissent it is commonplace for them to record
their dissent. This is in the interest of Openness and honesty
with the constituency. It is patent that the board has not
resolved the matter, nor has it been able to really discharge
its duty. Nor has the board given the church a full report of
what it found. It is our conviction that the church must re-
view this entire matter when it assembles in its convention.

Although more could be said, we believe the foregoing is
sufficient to give you a picture of events and procedures
which have caused us much dismay. We feel that we have
reached the limit of our ability to do our duty. While some
will perhaps say that we should not have spoken all these
things, we are reminded that others, including board mem-
bers, have advocated the adoption of the “Sunshine Law.”
And on many occasions. while the board members were ad-
monishing one another of the confidentiality of some of its