# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S90
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

90 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Seminary. St. Louis. did not choose to use these constitutional
provisions but elected rather to refuse to perform the duties to
which they were called and proceeded to turn the Synod into
a committee of the whole to hear their charges: and

WHEREAS. These teachers provided a rebellious example for
their students by their strike against their school: therefore be it

Resolved. That we condemn such action as destructive, call
upon all who have charges against their Synod or its officers
to use the constitutional provisions, and reaffirm our confidence
in those men who serve on the District and synodical Commis-
sions of Adjudication and the Board of Appeals.

First Lutheran Church
Knoxville, Tenn.
Harry D. Smith, Pastor
F. Mundt. President

3-89
To Commend St. Louis Board of Control

WHEREAS. Doctrine contrary to Scripture was being taught
at the seminary in St. Louis. thereby causing much unrest among
the members of the Synod and thereby causing the Synod at
convention in Milwaukee in 1971 to ask Dr. J. O. Preus, Presi-
dent of the LCMS. to check into the teachings of the professors
of the seminary: and

WHEREAS, It is one of the duties of the President to see to it
that the doctrine of our Synod is upheld in all our synodical
schools, and because of the unrest in the Synod Dr. Preus se-
lected a Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the teachings
of the St. Louis seminary: and

WHEREAS. The Fact-Finding Committee found teachings
contrary to what was to be taught, they reported back to the
President with the report, which caused the Synod at conven-
tion in New Orleans in 1973 to take actions to correct the wrong;
and

WHEREAS. The Synod in convention also found that there was
teaching going on at the St. Louis seminary which was contrary
to Scripture and therefore ordered the Board of Control of that
seminary to deal with the matter: and

WHEREAS. The Board of Control spent much time in the
process of dealing with Dr. Tietjen, who was president of that
seminary at the time. and was also responsible to the Synod to
see to it that all professors were teaching what they were hired
and called to teach: and

WHEREAS, The Board of Control found Dr. Tietjen guilty and
suspended him: be it therefore

Resolved. That the Synod in convention at Anaheim in 1975
commend the St. Louis Board of Control for their decision in
relieving Dr. Tietjen of his duties as president of our St. Louis
seminary: and be it futher

Resolved. That we thank the Board of Control for the great
love they showed to Dr. Tietjen by keeping him on the payroll
through Nov. 15, 1974. and giving him permission to live in one
of the Synod's homes until the end of 1974 even though he was
not serving in the best interest of the Synod during all those
months: and be it finally

Resolved. That we as a Synod continue to pray for God's
guidance as this Board of Control continues to deal with others
who have upheld teachings contrary to the Word of God.

Zion Lutheran Church
Lincoln, IIL.
Robert E. Klemm. Secretary

3-90

To Rescind New Orleans
Resolution 3-12A

WHEREAS. Resolution 3-12A (New Orleans 1973) was adopted
as a replacement for Resolution 3-12: and

WHEREAS. Resolution 3-12 called for the resignation or dis-
missal of Dr. John Tietjen as president of Concordia Seminary.
St. Louis, thereby rendering Resolution 3-12A prejudicial: and

WHEREAS. Adequate procedures are available in the Hand-
book to deal with the matter, making Resolution 3-12 unneces-
sary: therefore be it

Resolved. That the Florida-Georgia District of The Lutheran
Church~ Missouri Synod petition the 1975 convention of the
Synod to rescind Resolution 3-12A.

Florida-Georgia District
Theodore W. Eisold, Secretary

3-91A

To Declare 1973 Resolutions 2-12, 3-01.
and 3-09 Unconstitutional
Preamble

That the Synod is bound confessionally by Article II of its
Constitution is confirmed by Article VI. New Orleans Resolution
2-12 in effect has given conventions the authority from time to
time to alter the synodical confessional basis. Article VIII
clearly states: “All matters of doctrine and of conscience shall
be decided only by the Word of God. All other matters shall be
decided by majority vote.”

An earlier attempt to add to the confessional basis of our
Synod by its 1959 convention in making A Brief Statement
binding was declared to be unconstitutional at its next conven-
tion. A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles.
adopted at the New Orleans convention in Resolution 3-01. is
a repeated effort to go beyond the Constitution and by the same
token also is unconstitutional.

The New Orleans convention condemned the position of the
faculty majority of Concordia Seminary in Resolution 3-09 on
the strength of public indictments without first dealing in a
brotherly way according to Matthew 18. This action also con-
flicted with Bylaw 6.79 of the Handbook. In the nature of the case
the members of the convention, in voting and condemning the
faculty. could not have been fully knowledgeable of all doctrinal
issues involved. Brotherly love and concern for one another
by those who “walk together" makes such resolutions unac-
ceptable in the church of God.

WHEREAS. The New Orleans convention passed resolutions
(2-12, 3-01, 3-09) that in fact are being used to apply synodical
doctrinal statements in order to determine the orthodoxy and
suitability of the church’s servants and thus in effect become
binding on the minds and consciences of synodical members:
and

WHEREAS. Unchangeable articles of the synodical Constitu-
tion do not permit the amending of our church’s confessional
basis or the deciding of doctrinal matters by majority vote:
therefore be it

Resolved. That the Synod declare these resolutions to be
unconstitutional.
The English District
Robert L. Landeck, Secretary

Identical or similar:

3-91B

Redeemer, Philadelphia, Pa. Richard Hoyer

3-92

To Rescind 1973 New Orleans
Convention Resolution 2-12 and Other
Resolutions
WHEREAS, Article II of the Synod’s Constitution clearly states

the basis of the Synod's confession: and

WHEREAS. Article II of the Synod’s Constitution makes no
statement requiring the formulation and adoption of synodical
doctrinal statements: and

WHEREAS, Article II, on one hand, explicitly lists the docu-
ments which form the confessional basis of the Synod, viz.. “the