LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 140

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

140 RESOLUTIONS

To Decline “Special Rules for Action”
RESOLUTION 3-11
Overture 3-22 (CW, p. 121)

Wuereas, The standing rules of the convention, To-
day’s Business, Saturday, July 7, 1973, have been ap-
proved by the convention; therefore be it

Resolved, That Overture 3-22, which calls for special
rules of parliamentary procedure, be respectfully de-
clined.

Action: None. Referred under omnibus Res. 4-47 to
the Board of Directors.

To Deal with Dr. John Tietjen
Under the Provisions of Synod’s “Handbook”

RESOLUTION 3-12A
(replacing Res. 3-12)

Overtures 3-112, 3-161, 3-162A—B, 3-163A—B, 3-164,
3-165, 3-196 (CW, pp. 145, 157—158)

WHEREAS, The committee is mindful of the fact that
less than a day remains for convention deliberation and
that the matters contained in the above named over-
tures cannot be adequately dealt with on the floor of
the convention, because of the press of other business
and the time available; and

Wuereas, Adequate procedures are available in the
Handbook of Synod to deal with the matter; therefore
be it

Resolved, That the matter of Dr. John H. Tietjen as
president and professor of Concordia Seminary, Saint
Louis, shall be dealt with in such manner as is per-
mitted under applicable substantive and procedural pro-

visions of the Handbook of the Synod.

Action: Adopted as amended by common consent
(15).

(Resolution 3-12 was distributed in Wednesday’s Today’s
Business prior to Session 9. With time running out, Com-
mittee 3 introduced Resolution 3-12A in Session 15 as a
replacement. By common consent the pertinent overtures
were inserted into the heading and reference to them sub-
stituted for a reference to Res.3-12 in the first whereas.
A motion to amend the resolution to include an apology
to Dr. John Tietjen for the appearance of Res.3-12 in
Today’s Business was declined by a rising vote after the
previous question on the amendment had been called,
768 to 43, and a motion asking for a secret ballot vote had
failed to carry. During the discussion the convention agreed
to extend the time until Res. 3-12A had been considered
and had received action. By a vote of 743 to 38 the question
on the entire resolution was eventually called. A motion
to delete the first whereas was defeated. Resolution 3-12A
was then adopted by a standing vote, 513 to 394. Dr. Tietjen
was granted the privilege of responding to the vote. His
statement is summarized in the Minutes for Session 15.

It should be carefully noted that in introducing Resolu-
tion 3-12A as a replacement for Res. 3-12, Committee 3
stated that Res. 3-12 no longer existed as far as the con-
vention was concerned. It is reprinted at this point because
of the motion to apologize to Dr. Tietjen for its appearance
in Today’s Business. Attention is also called to the Minutes
of Session 16 in which is recorded a statement of Commit-
tee 3 with reference to the printing of Res. 3-12.

RESOLUTION 3-12
(replaced by 3-12A)

To Take Action Regarding the President
of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.

Overtures 3-112, 3-161, 3-162A—B, 3-163A—B, 3-164, 3-196
(CW, pp. 145, 157—158)

Introduction

According to the report of the Board of Control of Con-
cordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, the board interviewed
29 members of the faculty on the basis of the report of the
Fact Finding Committee. While the board expressed its
awareness of the fact that there are “theological issues both
at the seminary and throughout the Synod which must be
dealt with in fraternal discussion” (CW, p. 100), the board
voted to “commend” 44 professors thereby declaring, ac-
cording to the board’s own interpretation of this action, that
no professor is “guilty of false doctrine.’ The board thus
distinguishes between “theological issues” and “false doc-
trine,” and reports to the Synod that even with respect to
areas of concern on which they concentrated in the inter-
views, including “the nature of Scripture’s authority” (CW,
p. 99), it recognizes the existence of problems of a theo-
logical nature but not of a doctrinal nature.

The report of the President of the Synod does not agree
with the report of the Board of Control. The President’s
report holds that in the report of the Fact Finding Commit-
tee there is evidence of “false doctrine” pertaining to the
nature of the Holy Scriptures (Blue Book, p. 25). When the
CTCR evaluated the faculty document titled Faithful To
Our Calling, etc., Part I, the CTCR concluded that this
faculty document “points up the fact that there are sub-
stantive differences within our Synod on important doctrinal
matters” (CW, p. 40). That doctrine is involved is recog-
nized by both parties to the current debate in our Synod.
In a public letter dated Sept. 8, 1972, the president of the
St.Louis seminary said concerning both the Fact Finding
Committee and the President of the Synod, whom he char-
acterizes as “adversaries” (a term used in our Symbols for
heretics who reject the Gospel!), that he had grave mis-
givings about their doctrinal positions, and that he had
something to say to them about their doctrinal soundness.
It is worthy of note that Immanuel Lutheran Church, Val-
paraiso, Ind., whose pastor, Doctor Paul Bretscher, is a
member of the CTCR and a defender of the St.Louis fac-
ulty’s position, submitted an overture to this convention
of the Synod which reads in the third Whereas as follows:
“The disagreements which presently trouble our church are
indeed ‘matters of doctrine and of conscience.” (Overture
3-182A, CW, pp. 160—161)

Not only do those on both sides of the dispute which
troubles our church recognize that the issues are doctrinal,
but they also recognize that the disagreements have to do
with central articles of our faith. In the letter of the presi-
dent of the seminary referred to above, he stated that his
“basic concern is not about some minor aberration but over
our adversaries’ basic understanding of the nature of the
Gospel itself,” thereby indicating that he regards the dis-
agreement between him and the FFC (and between him
and the President of the Synod) as involving the chief topic
of the total Christian doctrine. In his document titled Fact
Finding or Fault Finding? the president of the St. Louis
seminary charges that the theology of the FFC and of the
Synod’s President “is an incipient distortion of the Biblical
Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” which “threat-
ens our Synod with grave danger” and which “needs to
be exposed and corrected lest it worsen, and in worsening,
destroy the faith by which we live” (p. 12). Given the
seminary Board of Control’s understanding of the signifi-
cance of declaring that a professor needs to be “corrected,”
namely that this is the equivalent of declaring him open to
the charge of false doctrine (CW, p. 100), the statement that
the FFC’s and the synodical president’s theology needs to
be corrected amounts in this context to a charge of false
doctrine relative to the Gospel itself!

Those on both sides of the dispute in our Synod are
aware also that the differences and disagreements pertain-
ing to important doctrinal issues in our Synod are deep
and radical. With reference to the doctrine of the authority
of the Holy Scriptures the CTM of November 1972, p. 666,