LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 102

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

102 SEMINARY ISSUES

and, if ‘lsctrinal, who was correct. Nevertheless. by the
very action of declaring that no professor was guilty of
false doctrine a determination was made by the board as to
what constituted doctrine and then as to what constituted
false doctrine.

The board's report also states the Fact Finding Com-
mittee Report disclaimed any judgmental function, and that
“... since the board 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 doctrine.” However, we feel constrained to
point out that it is necessary to understand that to “have
before it charges” is seemingly equated with having accepted
jurisdiction of a charge or charges as opposed to having
physically received a written charge or charges. Because of
this technical use of the word “received” the board did not
take practical recognition of the the fact that it did have
before it the Report of the Synodical President where that
officer

notes with dismay that he sees in the evidence presented by the
Fact Finding Committee:

a. A false doctrine of the nature of the Holy Scriptures coupled
with methods of interpretation which effectually erode the
authority of the Scriptures.

b. A substantial undermining of the confessional doctrine of
original sin by a de facto denial of the historical events
on which it is based.

c. A permissiveness toward certain false doctrines.

d. A tendency to deny that the Law is a normative guide for
Christian behavior.

e. A conditional acceptance of the Lutheran Confessions.

f. A strong claim that the Seminary faculty need not teach in
accord with Synod's doctrinal stance as expressed in the
Synod's official doctrinal statements and resolutions. {Report,
p. 25]

From other sources the board also had received written
charges that certain subscribers:

a. “. . . now formally charge with supporting and com-
municating false doctrine as witnessed in the above letter
quotation ., ."; that there was

b. “toleration and participation in false doctrine’; and that
certain subscribers

ec. “. . . feel that the quoted statements to follow made by
+ + . constitute a public offense - a display of
doctrinal incompetence and uncertainty which is unbeliev-
able... ."

To date the board has entertained none of the foregoing
complaints for jurisdiction. The board has never under-
taken the Report of the Synodical President,

Finally, it is with dismay that we note the report, Fact
Finding or Fault Finding? An Analysis of President J. A. O.
Preus’ Investigation of Concordia Seminary, by President
Tietjen, was printed and distributed without the approval
of the Board of Control and that the Board has not approved
the expenditures therefor or for Faithful To Our Calling,
Faithful To Our Lord, Parts I and II. We also note that
in most instances the individual affirmations are not re-
sponsive to those issues currently in controversy and which
have been spoken to by the synodical President. Similarly,
we note that Fact Finding or Fault Finding is not a response
to the synodical President's Report but to perhaps a part
of the Fact Finding Committee Report which has never
been a part of the public domain and is therefore a response
to a “straw man.”

The undersigned are quite aware that a majority of the
board may not approve of their expressing their views to
the Synod. Nevertheless, we would assume that those com-
prising a majority of the board who feel that the many
departures of the faculty from Synod’s doctrinal stance are
only open questions should readily concede the undersigned
the right to express also their opinions to the Synod. As
previously stated, we feel conscience bound to report to the
Synod such important matters of faith and life. Here, our
conscience speaks with the church of old:

We should have preferred, and we besought and petitioned
the Almighty, that our churches and schools might have been
preserved in the teaching of God's Word and in agreeable
Christian concord and that they might have been well managed
and carried on in Christian fashion and in harmony with God's
Word, as they were while Dr. Luther was alive. Nevertheless.

just as, while the holy apostles were still alive, it happened
that false teachers insinuated perverted teachings into the
churches in which the arostles themselves had planted the pure.
unadulterated Word of God. so such false teachers were also
inflicted on our churches because of our own and the ungrateful
world’s impenitence and sin. [Preface to the Book of Concord,
Tappert, p. 4]

Exhibit B, attached hereto, should further help the Synod
understand the foregoing report and to act upon the re-
quest of the synodical President “. . . calling upon every
member of the Synod to pray with fervency and faith that
God would bless us and ‘keep us steadfast in His Word and
work’” (Report, Epilog. p. 149).

This report has been shared with, and subscribed to by
Messrs. Burmeister and Fincke.
Walter C. Dissen
E. C. Weber

Exhibit A

Items of Deep Concern Regarding the Doctrine Taught
at the St.Louis Seminary

In the report of a minority of the Board of Control, June
22, 1972. the statement was made that there was deep con-
cern over the teaching at the seminary. A study of the
report of the synodical President's Fact Finding Committee
had led the signers of the minority report of June 22, 1972,
to question whether certain positions “. . . apparently held
by various professors . . . represent true fidelity to the Holy
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions... .” Therefore
on pages 141-142 of the Report of the Synodical President
the minority listed items of concern.

There are those who have attempted to discredit the
report of the Fact Finding Committee as well as the Report
of the Synodical President. However, at this point in time
we must in good conscience report to the church that the
interviews held by the Board of Control with the faculty
members have served to substantiate and underline the ace
curacy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee. No
longer can there be any confusion regarding the position of
faculty. The only question is whether The Lutheran Church
-— Missouri Synod will judge the items of concern to be
areas in which there may be latitude allowed in theological
expression or whether the Synod will judge that the posi-
tions held by the faculty are actually unfaithful to Scrip-
ture and the Confessions and thus false doctrine. We be-
lieve the latter to be the case. In any event, our consciences
dictate to us that the church must have the facts which the
Board of Control found so that the church may judge in
an intelligent and God-fearing manner,

We are presenting below the original points of concern
listed last June followed in most cases by quotations from
the official board's summaries prepared by President Tietjen
and the faculty members. Even though the Board of Control
did not follow our original list in any way. the outcome is
that there is almost complete overlap and corroboration.
In no case is there contradiction. We who sat through the
interviews feel that had the full interviews been recorded,
the picture would have been even more striking.

Originally we said (Report of the Synodical President.
pp. 141—142):

The undersigned in their review of the FFC report noted
items which cause them deep concern over the teaching at the
Seminary. By way of illustraticn and not as a comprehensive
listing some of these are hereinafter referred to. It is our
considered opinion that the SYNOD must determine if IT is
willing to agree that the following fositions apparently held by
various professors, for example. represent true fidelity to the
Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.

A. (1) It is not necessary to believe there was a personal
Adam. the first man. although the Apostle Paul as a man of
that particular era probably believed Adam was a historical
character.

From the oficial summaries of the interviews held by the
Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-
fessors as:

“The historicity of the individuals described in the text of
Genesis 2—3 is a question which must be decided on the basis
of the literary form of that passage. Those who do not consider
Genesis 2—3 to be a literal historical record of the lives of two
specific individuals with the Hebrew names Adam and Eve,