LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 101

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SEMINARY ISSUES 101

inalienable right to have a full disclosure of the substantive
theological and doctrinal matters as well as the related pro-
ceedings so that it might, by the grace and mercies of Al-
mighty God, judge correctly and rightly determine which
path it will trod. Much that is material is omitted in the
Report of the Board of Control that consists only of ap-
proximately four and one-half pages. The fact that those
few pages alone represent the board's report to the church
of a voluminous, lengthy and time-consuming study on_ its
review of the faith and teaching of the theological staff of
our St.Louis seminary simply boggles the mind.

To understand the board's report in its perspective one
must first have adequate knowledge of the procedures
followed by the board. While the board did interview 29
faculty members, it has no transcript as a record of these
interviews. In spite of the fact that the President of the
Synod on more than one occasion (in person as well as by
letters) requested taping of the board's interviews or a
record of the proceedings and in spite of motions made
at board meetings in November 1971 and October 1972 that
such interviews be taped, the board declined to do so.
(Taping was vehemently opposed by President Tietjen.)
There is thus no verbatim record of the board's interviewing
process in this matter that so vitally affects the life of the
church. Instead, there is a “summary” of each interview
which was prepared after the interview by President Tietjen
in consultation with the particular faculty member in-
volved. This summary was then subject to acceptance and/or
correction by a majority of the board. Some suggested
changes and/or corrections were made by the board, others
were not. The summary contains that which the summarizer
felt most important and in some instances omits important
questions and responses as well as commentary.

The board, it should be noted, also decided that its secre-
tary could not include in the minutes a substantive report
of the interview process. The minutes proper show that
the interview commenced at a stated time, terminated at
a stated time and that the professors were interviewed on
the basis of the Fact Finding Committee material. The
summaries, however, have been made a part of the minutes.
In substance therefore, the official record of the board's
interviews is the product of President Tietjen and the
various interviewees. This is somewhat analogous to a de-
fendant in a court case taking over the role of court
reporter.

The board reports, “The Board of Control held that
Resolution 2-28 was a mandate from the Synod and there-
fore took precedence over everything 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.” Relative to this, the
church should know also that for all practical purposes
the board ignored that office of the Synod which its Consti-
tution charges with “. . . supervision regarding the doctrine
and administration of —a. all officers of the Synod; b. all
such as are employed by the Synod .. .” How? Through
the decision by the chair that the content of the Report
of the Synodical President to The Lutheran Church — Mis-
souri Synod pursuant to Milwaukee Resolution 2-28 could
not be referred to in the interview process or be made the
subject of questions except that transcript extracts therein
quoted could be referred to.

In addition, the board ignored the following requests of
the synodical President set forth on page 147 of his said
Report, namely:

2. Since Dr. John Tietjen, president of the seminary, has
identified himself with the views referred to above; since ‘the
Synod, its boards, and its members shall first of all hold him
responsible in all matters pertaining to the institution” (Hand-
book 6.91); since he has indicated in his answer to the synod-
ical President's request that he considers a response to that re-
quest to be a “‘resvonsibility which the Synod_has given to the
Board of Control’’ despite the statement of Bylaw 6.91: ‘‘The
president of each of the Synod's institutions shall be the spir-
itual, academic, and administrative head thereof and shall be
the executive officer of the Board of Control’; since he states
that he has already ‘‘assured’’ himself ‘through personal dis-
cussions with the professors that they are not teaching contrary
to their confessicnal commitment” despite the fact that he was
present at every interview by the Fact Finding Committee and
thus has knowledge of everything in the committee’s report;

therefore the President of the Synod is asking the Seminary
Board of Control to deal personally and first of all with Presi-

dent John Tietjen (ai as to his own confec sr. stance and
(b} as to his failure to exercise the supe. .isign +f “he Juctrine
of the faculty as prescribed in the synodical Hand. rok,

3. The President of the Synod is calling upon the Board
of Control, and through that board the administrat.on of the
faculty, to direct the faculty that, beginning with classes in the
school year 1972--73 no faculty member shall in any way,
shape, or form, in clas. lectures, in private consultations with
students, in articles written for public consumption, vr at pas-
toral conferences use any method of interpretation nich casts
doubt on the divine authority of the Scriptures and thus also
on the Gospel itself. «uestions the historicity or fa stuality of
events described in Scripture as actually having taken place,
calls into question the reality of any Biblical miracce vVitiates
the validity of the tes any of Christ and the New Testament
writers in their refercreces to the Old Testament, cass 9 shadow
on the factualness of the Gospel accounts ef the no: isiry of
Christ. or in any other way depavts from the doctrine. jiion
of the Svrad as set forth in Article IT of the Cen

This position of the Synod in terms of its applice
Scriptures and the Canfessions to various issues of ©
been abundantly set forth in resolutions of the Svyned

which are inelided in this report. In other words. th:

is to be @ d to teach in keeping with the doctrina: hosition
of the church which emplayvs them, calls them, and asks them
to prepare its future nastors, and in this way “to hone: and to

uphold” such resolutions of the Sxvnod.

By clear and convincing evidence it is thus obvious to
even the most casual observer that the doctrinal and theo-
logical concerns of the verv Presijent of the Synod were
thus not adequately dealt with -- if. indeed, dealt with at all.

In connection also with the doctrinal and theological
issues the board received at its March 20, 1972. mectins the
synodical President's A Statement ef Scriptural and Con-
fessional Principles as guidelines ta his assessment of the
issues confreanting the Synod and to his understanding of
how the issues should he resolved. ‘(The Synod’s Caommis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations on Nov. 21. 1972.
said, “We find the doctrinal content of A Statement to be
in accord with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions
and to contain nothing contrary to them... .”) However.
in a previous report last June to the President of the Svnod
and the Bour for Higher Education (i.e. the Minority Re-
port) it was then stated that“... the Statement has vet
to be corporately considered hy the Board even in the face
of its being branded un-Lutheran by the faculty” (A Report.
p. 140). Now 9 months later, a majority of the hoard has
declared itself satisied that it has acted resnonsibly. but
alas and indeed, this very State vent of President Preus
which has been approved by the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations has been relegated to quiet obscurity
by the board. Thus the Board of Control ignored President
Preus’ Statement. Moreover, it never cid on its own develon
or express criteria by which it judged the theology and
doctrinal stance of the professors.

In the Minority Report aforesaid it was stated that
certain listed items caused the signers * deep concern
over the teaching at the Seminary” and thev auestioned
whether certain enumerated positions “. . . apparently held
by various professors represent true fidelitv to the
Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.” Subsequent
interviews of the 29 faculty members referred to in the
board's latest report did not allay the deep concern ex-
pressed in the said Minority Report but in fact confirmed
and substantiated that which the synodical President_re-
ported to the Synod on the basis of the work of the Fact
Finding Committee.

Appended hereto as Exhibit A is an itemization of certain
concerns heretofore expressed in the earlier Minority Report
together with supporting evidence from the summaries of
the board interviewees. (Again, it should be remembered,
these summaries were prepared by President Tietjen in
consultation with the professor involved after the interview
so that each man is putting his best foot forward.) Never-
theless it will be readily perceived that the synodical Presi-
dent was most accurate in his appraisal of the doctrinal
problems.

The majority of the board in its report to the President
of the Synod in June 1972 concluded it was aware of many
problems. However. it has to date not settled any of the
issues. Nevertheless it has declared the faculty free of false
doctrine without referring to any criteria applied to the
admittedly many problems. This is a_ rather novel twist
and a seeming reversal of the usual deliberative process of
arriving at a conclusion. It is also worth noting that one
board member expressed the opinion that he felt unqualified
to determine which, if any, of the problems were doctrinal