# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S110
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

110 SEMINARY ISSUES

III. Recommended Handbook Changes

Even though we believe that the action of the Commis-
sion on Accrediting of the AATS in placing Concordia Semi-
nary, St. Louis, on probation was unjustified, we urge that
the Synod make every reasonable effort to meet the stan-
dards of AATS. To this end the Task Force has met with
Dr. Jesse Ziegler, executive secretary of the AATS in the
U.S. and Canada, and a committee of the Task Force has
met with a Committee of the Commission on Accrediting of
the AATS, consisting of President Joseph I. McCord of
Princeton Theological Seminary; Rev. Dr. Austin DeVenny
of Weston College School of Theology; Dean Warren Groff
of Bethany School of Theology; and Dr. Jesse Ziegler. Most
of the concerns of the committee have been satisfied as a
result of these meetings though the committee of the AATS
still has some concerns with regard to the Task Force pro-
posal for Handbook Section 6.53b. Dr. Ziegler has stated
that if an adjustment can be made in this section which is
satisfactory to the AATS it is his judgment as executive
director that the proposed changes in Bylaws will “from a
documentary point of view care for the major concerns of
AATS regarding the administration and educational pro-
grams of the Synod’s member seminaries and AATS.” He
has further stated that official reaction to the documentary
changes will be available from the Commission on Accredit-
ing following its June 1973 meeting. For that reason it may
be possible prior to the synodical convention in New Orleans
to secure from the commission itself an assurance that it
will be satisfied with these proposed Handbook changes.

The suggested Handbook changes in Section 1.09d are
intended, first of all, to clarify the District membership of
clergy and teacher members of the Synod who are serving
a synodical board, commission, department, institution, or
church-related agency. There has been some confusion,
with the result that some individuals, at least in the past,
have held membership in two synodical Districts. The recom-
mended changes are also to make clear the responsibilities
which the District President of the District in which the
college or seminary is located has with regard to ecclesi-
astical supervision. The District President holds membership
on the college or seminary Board of Control and it is this
individual who should be responsible for ecclesiastical super-
vision under the proposed Section 6.80.

The statement under 1.09e as proposed is intended to
describe what the Synod has said about the approach it
wishes its members to take toward convention resolutions.

Under 6.23 the Task Force is recommending no change
in the makeup of the Boards of Control of the synodical
colleges. Under Section 6.23 b the Task Force is reeommend-
ing that the Boards of Control of the two seminaries be
uniform. The pattern is that of the St. Louis Board of Con-
trol with the addition of one teacher. If these proposals are
adopted, additional board members will have to be elected
to the Springfield Board of Control and one additional
teacher board member will have to be elected to the St.
Louis Board of Control.

The proposals on the appointment of members of the
faculty (Proposed Section 6.53) provide that as in the past
the prior consent of the Board for Higher Education be
secured for initial appointments to any faculty, and in the
case of initial appointments to the faculty of a theological
seminary the prior approval of the seminary electors. It is
in this area covered by proposed Section 6.53b that the
Committee of the Commission on Accrediting of AATS still
has some concerns. Dr. Ziegler writes:

We regret very much that the Task Force has not yet seen clear
to put some qualifying phrase in this paragraph on the basis of
which the BHE might take its action regarding appointment of
new faculty members. Our suggestion was that it would seem
fairer to the Church, and fairer to us, if there were some phrase
that limited the arena of the BHE's action at least when based
on theological matters to those matters which are Synodical
pronouncements. Our committee pressed this matter rather hard
in our discussion with you and believe it to be a matter of
some importance.

The committee of the Task Force reealls no discussion
of this particular item in the initial meeting with the AATS
committee in Dayton in January. This particular section
was discussed at length in the meeting which the Task Force
committee had with the Committee of the AATS commission
in Pittsburgh in Februarv and the concerns of the AATS
committee were conveyed to the entire Task Force at its

February meeting. The Task Force spent a considerable
amount of time in discussing this concern of the AATS
committee and reached the conclusion that the interests of
the Synod would best be served by the recommended word-
ing. We believe that the Board for Higher Education must
not be limited in appointment, review, and approval to
“matters which are Synodical pronouncements.”

Proposals for renewal of appointment are to be submitted
for prior review and recommendation to the Board for
Higher Education; however, final decision on the renewal
of an appointment is to be the sole prerogative of the
Board of Control.

The recommendations of the Task Force regarding perma-
nent tenure are presented under Proposed Section 6.54.
In essence, this provides for a mandatory review of the
question of tenure by the Board of Control prior to the end
of the 6th year of service, with proper notification to the
individual involved. Generally accepted principles of aca-
demic tenure provide that a faculty member shall be granted
permanent tenure, if he has completed seven years of satis-
factory service. The recommendation of the Task Force
will require action by the Board of Control, either granting
or declining to grant tenure, prior to this time.

The Task Force proposals under Section 6.77 — “Removal
from Office’ —are essentially identical with those of the
present Handbook, The responsibilities of the Boards of
Control to investigate charges brought against faculty mem-
bers are spelled out in Proposed Section 6.78. In Proposed
Section 6.79, the Task Force spells out the procedures by
which the Board of Control is to exercise its responsibilities.

The Task Force is also proposing a procedure for ecclesi-
astical supervision (Proposed Section 6.80). Complainants
who are dissatisfied with the decision of a Board of Control
not to proceed in investigating charges which they have
made may bring their charges to the District President or
to the synodical President. Furthermore, a complainant who
is dissatished with an action of the Board of Control after
it has investigated charges may bring his case to the Board
of Appeals.

It is our conviction that these provisions will safeguard
the interests of faculty members by providing adequate and
proper hearing procedures, and also the interests of the
Synod, by providing for an appeal by the complainant.

The Task Force also urges that the Board for Higher
Education give serious consideration to the responsibility
which Boards of Control have under the synodical Handbook
to develop statements on academic freedom and responsi-
bilitv. (Present Handbook Section 6.53d; Proposed Section
6.53f) We reeommend that the Board for Higher Education
direct Boards of Control to prepare statements which will
clearly indicate the limitations of academic freedom be-
cause of the religious and confessional nature of the insti-
tution and that the Board for Higher Education further
direct Boards of Control to include such written statements
in all calls and contracts which that Board of Control issues.
We further recommend that the Board for Higher Educa-
tion develop sample statements on academic responsibility
and on limitations of academic freedom and that the Board
for Higher Education supply these sample statements to
the Boards of Control of the Synod's colleges and seminaries.
We also recommend that the Board for Higher Education
require Boards of Control to file the statements which are
being included in every call and contract with the Board
for Higher Education.

The Task Force is of the opinion that Handbook regula-
tions in chapter V regarding suspension need clarification
particularly with regard to the meaning of suspension (can
there be suspension from office without suspension from
membership in a congregation?), procedures, and the rights
of individuals under suspension. We recommend that this
matter be turned over to a committee or commission for
study and recommendation to the Synod.

One other item to which the Task Force would like to
call your attention is the matter of securing qualified nomi-
nees for positions on the Boards of Control of the various
synodical institutions. Our recommendations are included
in suggested modifications of Handbook Section 2.14¢, Sec-
tion 6.05 s, and Section 6.27a. We propose that all synodical
Boards of Control be mandated to submit nominations for
their respective Boards of Control to the Board for Higher
Education which will serve as a convention nominating com-