# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S145
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ADMINISTRATION 145

in Chicago and presented to the council the platform statement
of the Board of Directors for its involvement in trying to bring
reconciliation to the Synod:

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod is cur-
rently faced with problems of organization, divisions, some
disruption of ministerial training, and other pressures: and

WHEREAS, Such problems can unwittingly become the devil's
tool and divert the Synod from its primary purpose of sharing
the saving Gospel of Christ Crucified with the world to the end
that all men may come to know Him as Savior and be baptized
and confirmed in the faith: and

WHEREAS, These matters are seriously eroding the strength,
work, and convictions of individuals, congregations, Districts,
and program boards: and

WHEREAS, The synodical Board of Directors represents the
three million members of the church body and shares their
concerns that the great commission of our Lord, Matt. 28:18-20,
must be carried out: therefore be it

Resolved. That the Board of Directors give first priority and
devote most of its time, prayers, and energy to these problems
until they are resolved, in order to permit the ongoing work of
the Synod to be rededicated to achieving its primary purpose.

The Executive Committee further reported on the meetings
the Board of Directors held during its January meeting with
the BHE, Missions board and staff representatives, and the
synodical staff department heads.

In the February meeting and again in the March meeting
the Council of Presidents supported the Board of Directors’
efforts toward reconciliation.

Although little has been reported, thousands of man-hours
of time have been spent by the Executive Committee, the Board
of Directors, and by all the parties concerned in meetings
and in preparing for them. Approximately 40 meetings were
held on 30 days. Following now is a summary of these meetings:

February 10

The Executive Committee met with the BHE and Board of
Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to discuss the conven-
ing of a forum of representatives of the BHE, Board of Control,
the faculty majority and minority, and the student majority and
minority in order to bring about the resumption of normal
activity at the seminary. In this meeting the Executive Com-
mittee served as convener.

February 11

The Executive Committee met to finalize plans for the forum.
It was agreed that the Executive Committee would also be
participants in the forum. President Arnold Kuntz of the South-
ern California District was selected to serve as moderator of the
forum.

The Executive Committee also formulated a letter to the
synodical headquarters staff responding to suggestions they had
made at the January Board of Directors meeting. Some of their
suggestions have been accepted, others are still under con-
sideration.

February 15-16

A 2-day forum was held to try to bring the St. Louis seminary
back together. Points of agreement and disagreement were
raised. Frank and open discussion occurred. Problems and
potential solutions were brought up, but no consensus was
reached.

February 18

Actions of the faculty majority and of the Board of Control
on February 17 and 18 resulted in the faculty majority leaving
their positions and establishing a seminary in exile. As soon as
the Executive Committee became aware of these actions, it
immediately met and resolved ‘ton behalf of the 2,800,000
members of the Synod to call together representatives of the
Board of Control and the faculty majority for the purpose of
continuing the forum in order to bring the faculty back to the
classrooms to educate the students so that the needs of the
church for pastors might be met.” The meetings with the respec-
tive groups were requested for February 20, which was 2 days

later. Both the Board of Control meeting and former faculty
meeting were interrupted to communicate this request.

February 19

The Executive Committee met by telephone and was advised
that the former faculty was unable to give the Executive Com-
mittee’s request adequate consideration in its meeting of the
previous night. Therefore the meeting could not be held on
the 20th.

February 21

The Executive Committee met by telephone and was advised
that the former faculty had now accepted the invitation to meet.
Therefore separate meetings with the Board of Control and
representatives of the former faculty were scheduled for
February 24.

February 24

The Executive Committee met with the Board of Control in
the afternoon and with representatives of the former faculty
and students in the evening in order to propose a method of
fraternal discussions for the purpose of bringing about the
resumption of normal activities at the seminary. Three ques-
tions were posed to the respective groups: (1) Do we have a
problem? (2) Do we want to solve the problem? (3) Can we enter
into fraternal discussions with a willingness to give and take
to achieve a solution? Fraternal discussions were defined as
having a mediator who would meet with the respective groups
to identify the problems, analyze these problems, and then
probe for solutions with the ultimate goal of bringing also those
involved into full face-to-face discussions. The Board of Control
agreed that day to enter into the process of fraternal discussions,
and three representatives were selected to participate. The
former faculty members advised the Executive Committee that
its proposal for fraternal discussions would have to be reviewed
with the entire faculty before they could agree to the process.
They asked to meet again with the Executive Committee at a
future date. In the meantime it was agreed that the only release
would be: ‘Discussions are continuing.”” No word was received
from the former faculty until March 7.

February 28— March 1

At the January Board of Directors meeting the Board for
Missions was asked to convene an early meeting of the board
and staff for Missions in order to discuss their differences and
bring about a God-pleasing reconciliation. An early meeting
was not held, but rather an extra day was added to their regular
meeting. The Board of Directors had asked President Preus
to have three observers at the special meeting. He appointed
three members of the Executive Committee. Because of the
confrontation in the meeting it seemed that nothing would be
accomplished without some outside mediation. Therefore the
directors in attendance proposed “fraternal discussions”’ similar
to those proposed for the seminary. Both the board and staff
agreed to these discussions.

March 4

The Executive Committee met by telephone to review the
seminary and mission situations and to discuss the slate of
candidates for mediator. The committee selected several
experienced mediators as candidates and requested that they
be contacted.

March 11

The Executive Committee met by telephone and agreed to
the selection of the mediator in the seminary controversy. He
requested that his name be kept confidential until all parties
had accepted him as mediator and the fraternal discussions had
begun. He would have been available to begin the discussions
on March 25.

March 14

The Executive Committee prepared written guidelines for
fraternal discussions for both the seminary and the Missions
discussions. Included in these guidelines were suggestions made
by several experienced mediators with a variety of experience.