LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1992, Page 73

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT: 73

When Dr. Preus was confronted on Jan. 21 by Dr. Bohl-
mann and District President Garber with a summary of
several concerns that had been brought to his. attention
several times before, as well as some more recent actions,
he did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, did not repent,
and told the President to charge bim if he must. Thereafter,
we did charge him, hoping that taking our concerns to the
brethren would gain Dr. Preus’ acknowledgment of the
wrongful nature of his conduct and his correction of those
wrongs.

Our goal in formally charging Dr. Preus with these er-
rors has never been his expulsion from the ministry, but
rather to help him, first through our own attempta to meet
with him concerning his conduct and, when those attempts
. were rejected, through the good offices of the District Pres-
ident and the Synod’s adjudicatory processes. Throughout
this process we repeated our sole purpose: to help Dr. Preus
to acknowledge his wrongdoing, repent, and be restored
(Gal. 6:1) through the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ.
That remains our goal to this day.

- Regrettably, we have been unable to achieve our goal
of leading Dr. Preus to repentance and absolution. Dr.
Preus has admitted no wrongdoing as charged, in spite of
two formal hearings with hundreds of pages of documen-
tation and argumentation, and in spite of dozens of hours
of informal efforts, several initiated by us and others ar-
ranged by the IDCA and the synodical COA. !

We particularly commend the IDCA for its careful bib-
lical and pastoral approach. The members of the IDCA
understood that our concern was with repentance and ab-
solution, not with victory or defeat. They knew, too, that
the question of Dr. Preus’ clergy membership in the Synod
was, and is, secondary to the question of Dr. Preus’ own
spiritual well: being and the example his conduct provides
the church. Although we respectfully disagreed with some
of their judgments, we commend their efforts to help Dr.
Preus and the church. One member recused himself from
the hearing and final decision, because he felt he might
have a conflict of interest—again, a model of objectivity
and fairness that we commend. Their decision was a unan-
imous 6-0 action, upholding 5 of our 8 charges against Dr.
Preus, and ruling that he should be expelled from clergy
membership in the Synod until and unless he confessed
his sin with a contrite heart.

The May 31, 1992, decision of the synodical COA |to
overturn the unanimous IDCA decision marks the second
time the COA has overturned a lower commission’s finding
in a case involving Dr. Preus. It came after we protested
against the apparent conflict of interest of two commission
members, as well as perceived instances of bias on the part
of the commission against the President and in favor lof
Dr. Preus. Both protests were rejected by the COA. |

The COA decision meana that Dr. Preus is again on the
clergy roster of the Synod. The Praesidium would rejoice
in that result if it had come about through confession and
repentance, but that is not the case. The COA’s decision
attempts to exonerate Dr. Preus of any wrongdoing as

charged. We regard the decision as incorrect and filled with :

errors of fact, significant omissions, and selective citation.
It fails to correct Dr. Preus’ understanding of the divine
t

call, and evidences a serious misunderstanding of broth-
erly admonition and informal reconciliation efforts within
the church. The COA decision lacks a correct understand-
ing of confession and absolution, sin and grace, impenit-
ence and forgiveness. The decision of the COA not only
fails to regard sin as sin, but to recognize that-impenitence
for any sin, great or small, is a serious matter. We believe
that at least some members of the COA voted the way they
did simply because they did not want to see Dr. Preus
expelled from clergy membership in the Synod, and on that
account excused his misconduct.

The COA decision repeatedly, incorrectly states that the

‘Praesidium sought Dr. Preus’ expulsion from membership

in the LCMS, or that the purpose of bringing the charges

vagainst Dr. Preus was to “put him out of the Church.” This

was not a case of excommunication, nor did we have as
our purpose the termination of Dr. Preus’ clergy member-
ship in the Synod. Our objective always has been to seek

the assistance of the Synod’s adjudicatory commissions in

showing Dr. Preus his error and to gain his correction and

repentance.

With no evidence from the COA of Dr. Preus’ repentance

and restoration, we believe our pastoral concern for him
and his spiritual condition must continue. It is not only
what we have seen as particular instances of wrongdoing
that concern us, but especially that we perceived no evi-
dence of his penitence. We are also concerned for the
church, and want to help it understand that this decision
does NOT mean that the Synod approves of taking civil
action before attempting to reconcile or adjudicate within
the church, of careless handling of the truth, or of disregard
for our Christian brethren. Dr. Preus’ prominent position
and the wide respect he has enjoyed for many years make
the church’s perception of his conduct, and of his penitence,
all the more important.
‘We bear no personal animosity of any kind toward Dr.
Preus, and we regret the pain he and his family have en-
dured. But we also believe the Synod has given us, its
President and five Vice-Presidents, the sometimes heavy
and difficult burden of supervising the doctrine and life of
many of its officials and servants, The Synod should know
that all of our decisions throughout our several months of
dealing with Dr. Preus have been made prayerfully and
with complete unanimity.

Where we have failed in exercising our responsibility,
we ask God’s forgiveness and the Synod’s, too. But we also
know that the grace of God in Jesus Christ is rich and
more than ample to cover our sins and sbortcomings, and
Dr. Preus’, too. Secure in that knowledge, we commend Dr.
Preus and the future of this sensitive matter to the guid-
ance of the Holy Spirit.

Respectfully submitted in the name of Christ,

The Praesidium of

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Ralph A. Bohlmann, President

August T. Mennicke, First Vice-President
Robert H. King, Second Vice-President
Robert C. Sauer, Third Vice-President
Eugene W. Bunkowske, Fourth Vice-President
Walter A. Maier, Fifth Vice-President