LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 99

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3. SEMINARY ISSUES

REPORTS
3-01
President’s Report Re Resolution 2-28

directive of Milwaukee Resolution
Constitution
the follow-

In response to the
9-28 as well as in compliance with the synodical
Art. XI B 1-3 I am submitting to the convention
ing documents:

3-01A The Report of the Board of Control, Concordia

Seminary
3-01B Supplementary report by two board members (Mr.

Walter C. Dissen. Vice-President Edwin C. Weber)
3-01C Supplementary report by two board members (Mr.
Eugene Fincke, Mr. Charles Burmeister)
3-01D Report to the President of the Special Task Force
on Accreditation with the American Association of
Theological Schools

In addition. Committee 3 has asked that “The Report
of the Synodical President” of Sept. 1, 1972 (3-01E). and the
two documents prepared by the faculty of Concordia Semi-
nary entitled Faithful To Our Calling, Faithful To Our Lord
Part I and Part II (3-01F). be sent to all lay delegates.
They had previously been sent to pastors and male teachers.
I have shared this and other material with the Board for
Higher Education.

I regret that the Board of Control announced its con-
clusions regarding the doctrinal position of the faculty with-
out supplying the substantive basis for these conclusions.
It is plain that the Faithful documents substantiate the find-
ings of the Fact Finding Committee, as shown in the Report
of the Synodical President.

Committee 3 will be looking into all of these matters.

J. A. O. Preus. President

3-01A

Report of Board of Control of Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, to The Lutheran
Church — Missouri Synod, the President
of the Synod, and the Board for Higher
Fducation on Action Taken in Response
to the Directive of the Synod
in Milwaukee Convention Resolution 2-28

In June of 1972 the Board of Control of Concordia Semi-
nary. St. Louis, Mo., submitted to the President of the Synod
and the Board for Higher Education a Progress Report on
its work in carrying out the directive of Res. 2-28 of the
1971 Milwaukee convention of the Synod. This report of the
Board of Control was published on pages 133-138 of the Re-
port of the Synodical President to The Lutheran Church —
Missouri Synod, distributed to the pastors. teachers, and con-
gregations of the Synod in September 1972.

Milwaukee Res. 2-28 directs the Board of Control “to take
appropriate action on the basis of the report” of a Fact Find-
ing Committee appointed by the synodical President to in-
vestigate the doctrinal position of the members of the Saint
Louis seminary faculty, “commending or correcting where
necessary.”

The Board of Control held that Res. 2-28 was a mandate
from the Synod and therefore tock precedence over every~
thing which would have prevented the board from carrying
out this very specific assignment. When other materials
were introduced, the board always gave priority to the
Fact Finding Committee Report, on the basis of which the
Synod requested the board “to take appropriate action.”

The Board of Control submits the following report on the
action it has taken in response to the directive of Res. 2-28.

I. Review of the Board's Work

In the Progress Report referred to above the Board of
Control presented a summary of the board's work in carry-

99

ing out Milwaukee convention Res. 2-28 for the period from
September 1971, when the board officially received the Fact
Finding Committee Report, to June 1972, when the board
issued its Progress Report. In this report the board listed
the issues which it had isolated on the basis of its study of
the Fact Finding Committee Report and announced its in-
tention of discussing those issues with faculty members. The
board arranged for presentations by faculty members on
some of these issues.

Beginning in September 1972 and continuing through
January 1973. the Board of Control discussed these issues in
personal interviews with 29 members of the faculty at
monthly meetings. To accommodate the interviews the board
extended its meeting time and held 2-day meetings in Oc-
tober, November, and December. Most interviews were 15
to 2 hours in length, though some were longer and some
shorter.

The following faculty members were interviewed: Robert
W. Bertram. Kenneth H. Breimeier. Richard R. Caemmerer,
Robert L. Conrad, John W. Constable, John S. Damm, Fred-
erick W. Danker, William J. Danker, David E. Deppe, Al-
fred O. Fuerbringer. Paul F. Goetting, Carl Graesser, Nor-
man C. Habel, George W. Hoyer, Holland H. Jones,
Everett R. Kalin, Wi Jo Kang, Ralph W. Klein, Edgar
M. Krentz, Erwin L. Lueker, Herbert T. Mayer, Arthur Carl
Piepkorn, Arthur C. Repp, Alfred von Rohr Sauer, Edward
H. Schroeder. Robert H. Smith, John H. Tietjen, Carl A.
Volz, Walter Wegner.

In the interviews faculty members were given the oppor~
tunity to make an introductory confessional statement. Board
members directed questions to faculty members on the basis
of materials in the Fact Finding Committee Report, especi-
ally the transcripts of the interviews conducted by the com-
mittee. Board members had the opportunity of submitting
questions in advance to those who were to be interviewed.
Faculty members responded to these written questions in
writing.

Topics discussed with faculty members varied depending
on the person being interviewed, though some issues were
pursued with most faculty members. The board inquired
about the use of historical-critical methods in interpreting
the Scriptures and the implications of such use for an indi-
vidual’s understanding of the nature of the Scriptures. It
sought to determine how subscription to the Lutheran Con-
fessions was understood by individual faculty members. It
asked faculty members to explain their position on other
issues which the board had isolated and listed in its Progress
Report. The board concentrated especially on such matters
as the relation between fact and faith, the interrelation be-
tween the Old and the New Testaments, creation, original
sin, prophecy and fulfillment, Messianic prophecy, our Lord's
virgin birth. miracles. the relation between the Scriptures
and the Confessions, the meaning of inspiration, infallibility,
and inerrancy, the nature of Seripture’s authority, the rela-
tion between Law and Gospel, and the relation between syn-
odically adopted doctrinal statements and questions of Bibli-
cal interpretation.

Since the Fact Finding Committee Report. on the basis of
which the board was to take action. specifically disclaims
any judgmental function, and since the board therefore did
not have before it charges of false doctrine against any
faculty member, the board did not consider the interview
process to be an investigation of charges of false teaching.
Rather it considered the interviews to be fraternal discus-
sions through which the board sought to assure itself by
means of questions and answers that individual faculty
members did in fact and without reservation accept the
Scriptures “as the written Word of God and the only rule
and norm of faith and of practice” and the Lutheran Con-
fessions “as a true and unadulterated statement and exposi-
tion of the Word of God.” (Article II, Synodical Consti-
tion)

From its reading of the materials of the Fact Finding
Committee Report the board did not consider it necessary
to interview all faculty members. It interviewed every fac-
ulty member whom any board member considered it es-
sential to have interviewed prior to taking its

action at the
January 1973 meeting. Some board members were satisfied