LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 19-20, 1975, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

"l.

If the accusers were not present at the hearing before VicePresident Gerken, was this in fact a
valid hearing? Should not the accuser and accused both be heard and should not they confront each other in the presence of the one who is to pass some judgment?"
Answer:

"2.

Under the wording of the pertinent bylaws, the determination to grant a hearing
to the accuser as well as the accused when a charge has been transmitted from a
Board of Control to a District president seems to lie within the discretion of the
District president or vice-president to whom the transcript of the proceedings is
forwarded (Bylaw 6.79, 1). This does not preclude the possibility of granting a
hearing to the accusers as well as the accused. It should also be noted that the
accusers have the right under Bylaw 5.13, second paragraph, to request the
President of the Synod to intervene. (See "Opinion re Removal of District
Presidents from Office," I, A, 9 and "Opinion re Further Procedures When a
Board of Control has Sustained a Charge of False Doctrine," paragraph 8).

In view of the fact that Dr. Tietjen has on numerous occasions stated that Synod has a wrong
understanding of the Gospel and that its theology is un-Lutheran and sub-Biblical, and that
there are two theologies in the Synod, and that these are irreconcilable -- in view of these
statements, is not Vice-President Gerken's 'exoneration' of Dr. Tietjen equivalent to a
condemnation of the Synod's theological position?"
Answer:

The Commission holds that this question lies beyond the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters and suggests that you may wish to consult
with the Commission on Theology and Church Relations regarding this question.

491. Buelow--Harnapp Questions re Gerken--TietAen Matter (Ag. 870): Rev. L.P. Buelow in behalf of
himself and Rev. Harlan Harnapp had raised the following four questions with respect to the manner in
which Vice-President Oscar A. Gerken of the Missouri District had handled the charges against Dr. John
Tietjen, which had been relayed by the Board of Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. With Dr. John
Klotz abstaining, the Commission finally arrived at the following answers to the four questions:
"l.

Was it within the jurisdiction of Pastor Gerken to render the decision which he did?"
Answer:

"2.

Does not the right and the responsibility to hear the Tietjen case, to hear all parties involved,
to hear witnesses, and to render a decision, rest solely with the Missouri District Commission
of Adjudication?"
Answer:

"3.

It is within the jurisdiction of a proper District officer to render a decision when a
transcript has been forwarded to him from a Board of Control charging an
individual with a type of offense which can result in his expulsion from the
Synod.

Bylaws 6.79 1 and 5.13 provide for a decision to be made by the proper District
officer (president or vice-president). He may make this decision on the basis of a
review of the transcript alone. He may, however, consult with the principals or
others who can be of service to him in arriving at the decision which he must
make.

Does Bylaw 5.13 allow Pastor Gerken to make a decision on his own or is it an instruction to
place it before the proper Commission of Adjudication?"