# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S303
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

HIGHER EDUCATION 303

Future Needs

It is obvious that a number of continuing operational studies
in the area of higher education are necessary to insure that
changing conditions are adequately addressed by synodical
colleges and seminaries. This is particularly vital in the area
of special ministries and specific curriculum needs of such pro-
grams. The Task Force is particularly concerned about the
future needs for team ministry, for deaconess and lay training,
for teacher education, for Christian educational directors, and
for the appropriate uses of the master’s degree in religion. It is
felt that the future of the church requires that all avenues be con-
tinually explored and utilized as resources for work in God's
vineyard.

The Task Force has been particularly grateful for the co-
operation of the staff of the Board for Higher Education and to
various college personnel who have cooperated throughout
these efforts. Without their help and the tremendous back-
ground information made available from ongoing studies, the
work of the Task Force would have been vertually impossible.
We are also grateful to all who expressed their written and
verbal concerns as they were very helpful in our decision-
making process.

In conclusion it should be stated that with the help of God
and His Holy Spirit we gave it our best effort and herewith
commend the result to the Synod for evaluation.

Task Force to Consider Restructuring Synod's
System of Higher Education

Milton Carpenter

Richard Dickinson

William L. Halvorson

Leonard W. Heidemann (Chairman)

Roger Humann

Arnold Koschmann

Walter Moeller

Norman Sell (Advisory)

Gordon von Stroh

Martin Wessler

Albert B. Wingfield

George Wollenburg

William Wright (Secretary)

Edgar Ziegler

6-05

Report of Commission on Lay Higher
Education

The 1969 synodical convention established a Commission
on Lay Higher Education and defined the duties:

a. consult with groups in the Synod who are interested in
and concerned with the development and expansion of Lutheran
lay higher education:

b. encourage the support of Valparaiso University and
cooperate with Valparaiso in her concern for Lutheran lay
higher education:

c. maintain a current awareness of the Christian educational
opportunities available at other Lutheran colleges and univer-
sities and coordinate Lutheran lay higher educational programs
with such colleges and universities as appropriate:

d. plan and disseminate a program to inform pastors and
congregations about the general educational opportunities being
provided at synodical colleges, at other Lutheran colleges and
universities, and at those non-church-related institutions where
the Synod provides a campus ministry:

e. encourage the congregations of the Synod and their
memberships to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities
for Lutheran lay higher education available at the colleges and
seminaries of the Synod.

During the past biennium the members were: Dr. Gerhardt
E. Nitz, Mr. Robert Moellering, Mrs. Dorothy Rosin, and Dr.
Arthur M. Ahlschwede (advisory).

A number of activities have been promoted in the interest of
Lutheran Lay Higher Education:

a. Participation in all-Lutheran college nights bringing
together high school seniors and college counselors.

b. During April distributing all-Lutheran college day mate-

rials. These materials called attention to Lutheran colleges
through pastors and materials.

c. During December “Student Recognition Sunday” was
promoted. Suggestions to parishes and pastors were provided
for building closer relationships between the local parishes and
the students away at colleges or universities.

d. Students were encouraged to attend synodical colleges,
Valparaiso University, and the Lutheran colleges and univer-
sities.

e. Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod students were encour-
aged to attend synodical schools although they did not plan to
become professional church workers.

It is interesting to note that during the biennium more
synodical schools have served a growing number of adult
lay people through seminars, institutes, and course offerings
in religious and secular subjects.

Gerhardt E. Nitz, Chairman

6-06

Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Seminary offers this report to The Lutheran
Church -— Missouri Synod with a deep sense of gratitude to our
gracious God that He has strengthened and preserved the
seminary during the most difficult and critical period of its
136-year history. The two parts of our report treat the two most
significant aspects of the seminary’s life during the past bi-
ennium: the departure of a majority of faculty and students and
the rebuilding of the seminary.

I. After New Orleans
A. Faculty Protest

On July 24, 1973, just 11 days after the conclusion of the
synodical convention, the public news media were invited to
the campus of Concordia Seminary to witness a demonstration
in which the former faculty majority released a protest state-
ment against convention actions entitled “A Declaration of
Protest and Confession.” This statement not only called for the
formation of a protest movement within the Synod ‘organized
1 month later as ELIM), but accused the Synod of such actions
as the following: “violation of the procedures for evangelical
discipline.” “breach of contract.’ “violation of the principle
of Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) in elevating tradition above
Scripture," “the convention fettered the Scriptures.” and the
“unconstitutional act of altering the Synod's confessional
standard."’ Five members of the faculty expressed their strenu-
ous objection to the protest statement. as did many others
throughout the Synod.

In its Sept. 17. 1973, meeting the Board of Control registered
its dissatisfaction with the faculty protest and asked the Synod’s
Department of Public Relations to state publicly that the board»
“deplores the ‘Dectaration of Protest and Confession.’ On
Sept. 29, 1973. the Board of Control took note of a Sept. 26 letter
from the Board for Higher Education in which the BHE “cen-
sures the action of the St. Louis seminary president, Dr. John
Tietjen, and the faculty and staff who signed ‘A Declaration of
Protest and Confession.’ The BHE action further called upon
the Board of Control ‘to take note of this act of rebellion on the
part of the president and the majority of the faculty and staff
and to take forthwith appropriate action to deal with the stance
that demonstrates complete unwillingness to cooperate with or
respect the Synod.”

In its next meeting, Oct. 15, 1973. the Board of Control dis-
cussed the faculty’s protest and the BHE directive. One month
later the Board of Control directed Dr. Tietjen to explain in
writing by Dec. 10 how he reconciled his obligation as president
of the seminary with certain actions that had taken place, in-
cluding “his participation in the July faculty protest, and the
failure of the faculty to withdraw that protest.” Although Dr.
Tietjen did not provide the requested written response by Dec.
10, he did discuss this matter with the Board of Control in its next
meeting, Jan. 7, 1974, and distributed a written response in the
meeting of Jan. 20-21, 1974. In that meeting the board requested
an individual reply from each faculty member who had signed
the protest statement. This request was virtually ignored. For
those faculty members who left Concordia Seminary in Febru-