LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 141

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

|
|
|
|

RESOLUTIONS 141

observes that “the alternatives are sharp and mutually ex-
clusive.” This assessment of the situation confirms the
judgment of the President of the Synod when in his report
he concludes that “the Synod must face the grave issue of
fundamental disagreement in the doctrine of the Holy Scrip-
tures with its far-reaching implications for all of Christian
faith and theology” (Report, p. 25). The president of the
seminary used such drastic terminology as “less than Scrip-
tural” and “un-Lutheran” in order to express his own deep-
rooted disagreement with the FFC’s view of Scripture in-
terpretation and its theology in general (Fact Finding or
Fault Finding? p. 2). At a meeting of the Council of Presi-
dents, the seminary president characterized the theology of
the Synod’s President and of the FFC as sub-Biblical and
un-Lutheran (Minutes of the Council of Presidents, Sept.
18—21, 1972, p. 15). The faculty of the St. Louis seminary
indicated how seriously it disagrees with the doctrinal posi-
tion of the Synod’s President when it called his Statement
of Scriptural and Confessional Principles “divisive,” thereby
declaring that in the faculty’s opinion the synodical Presi-
dent’s position is so radically opposed to the faculty’s posi-
tion that the synodical President’s position must be regarded
as injurious to the unity of the Synod.

The fundamental disagreement in our ‘church, posing
alternatives that are sharp and mutually exclusive, has to
do principally with a doctrine of basic importance for Lu-
theran theology, namely the doctrine of the authority of
the Holy Scriptures as confessed in Article II of the Synod’s
Constitution.

In his Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles
the synodical President sets forth the following points rela-
tive to the Holy Scriptures:

J. Inspiration pertains to the Holy Spirit’s authorship of
every word of the Scriptures (IV, A);

2. Inerrancy pertains to the truthfulness of the Scriptures
in all their parts and words. The view is rejected that
the Scriptures are inerrant only in matters that pertain
directly to the Gospel (IV, F);

3. The soteriological purpose of Scripture in no sense per-
mits us to call into question or deny the historicity or
factuality of matters recorded in the Bible. (IV, B)

Relative to these same three points the faculty document,
Faithful To Our Calling, etc., Part I, expresses itself as
‘ollows:

1. The inspiration of the written Word pertains to the effec-
tive power of the Scripture to bring men and women to
salvation (p. 36);

2. Inerrancy of the Scriptures pertains only to the dis-
closure of the truth about what God was doing in Jesus
Christ (p. 37);

3. Since faith rests in the promises of a faithful God and
not in the accuracy of ancient historians (p. 26), it is not
necessary to insist on the historicity of every detail of
the life of Jesus as recorded by the evangelists. (P. 25)

A comparison of the two positions relative to the above
three points substantiates the judgment that with respect to
the doctrine of Holy Scriptures the alternatives are sharp
and mutually exclusive, and that the Synod must face the
grave issue of fundamental disagreement which has far-
reaching implications for all of theology.

The Synod must also face the question as to the source
and cause of this disagreement.

The doctrinal position of the President of the Synod as
set forth in his Statement has been recognized within and
without the Synod as fully in accord with the teachings
of the Synod throughout the 125 years of its history. The
CTCR has declared that there is nothing in the President’s
Statement contrary to the Scriptures, the Symbols, or the
historic position of the Synod. The Board of Control and
the faculty of the Springfield, Ill, seminary have made
similar declarations. Even Lutherans in other Synods have
recognized the Statement as being nothing but a restatement
of the position our Synod has always held (Jordahi). The
present disagreement in our Synod, then, must stem from
those who cannot accept the President’s Statement and who
are therefore in disagreement with the position of the Synod
itself.

On the basis of the considerations set forth in this Pre-
amble, Floor Committee 3 unanimously offers to the Synod
the following resolution:

Wuereas, Overture 3-182A (CW, pp. 160—161) addressed
to the 50th regular convention of The Lutheran Church —
Missouri Synod correctly observes that the disagreements
which presently trouble our Synod are indeed matters of
doctrine and of conscience; and

Wuereas, These disagreements especially pertaining to
the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures
have been correctly assessed as so fundamental that the
alternatives are mutually exclusive (President’s Report, p. 25,
CTM, November 1972, p. 666); and

Wuereas, These disagreements pertaining to the doctrine
of the Holy Scriptures have far-reaching implications for
all of theology (to wit: the doctrines of creation, the fall,
the third use of the Law, etc.); and

Wuereas, These disagreements stem from those in the
Synod who disagree with the Synod’s position; and

WuereaS, The faculty of the St. Louis seminary is largely
responsible for these disagreements by promulgating doc-
trine at variance with the Synod’s position as this is evi-
denced not only by the FFC’s Report but also by Part I of
the faculty document, Faithful To Our Calling, etc.; and

Wuereas, The president of the St. Louis seminary not
only concurs in the doctrinal departures of the faculty from
the position of the Synod, but also defends the faculty mem-
bers and their doctrinal aberrations, and thereby has de-
clared himself opposed to the Synod’s position, and there-
fore unable to exercise doctrinal discipline; and

Whereas, The president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis,

is required by Bylaw 6.91 to be the spiritual, academic, and

administrative head thereof; and
Wuereas, Doctor John H. Tietjen as the president of

aforesaid seminary has failed in all three categories in
that he —

1. Allowed and fostered the teaching and dissemination of
doctrine contrary to the Scripture and the Synod’s his-
toric confessional stance (Constitution, Article II, and
the Charter of Concordia Seminary) ;

2. Became a principal party and failed to mediate and set-
tle professorial and doctrinal disagreements;

3. Was administratively irresponsible;

4. Presumptuously and wrongfully assumed Board of Con-
trol duties and prerogatives;

5. On occasion intimidated Board of Control members;

6. Demeaned the integrity and position of certain faculty
members;

7. Demeaned the office of the synodical President and de-
fied the executive authority thereof;

8. Refused to cooperate with the synodical President par-
ticularly in doctrinal considerations;

9. Was insubordinate to the authority of the Board for
Higher Education;

10. Failed to maintain careful watch over the spiritual wel-
fare, personal life, and conduct of the student body; and

we

Dr. John Tietjen speaking to the press