LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 107

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SEMINARY ISSUES 107

proceedings, the faculty and seminary public relations facil-
ities were standing by so that they could disseminate im-
mediately to the campus family and the public those topics
and decisions which the seminary president wanted high-
lighted.

We have no axe to grind, we are not on the Synod's pay-
roll either directly or indirectly, we are free agents. not
committed to anything or anybody, except what we believe
to be right. We are submitting this report after much
prayer and as a matter of conscience and above all, mindful
of how we are personally going to answer on judgment day
for our actions in “being about our Father's business.”

Eugene E. Fincke, Lay Member
Charles H. Burmeister, Lay Member

3-01D

Report to President of Special Task Force
on Accreditation

On June 2, 1972, the Commission on Accrediting of the
American Association of Theological Schools in the United
States and Canada placed Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, on
probation and cited as the reasons for this action:

1. Adequate authority of the Board of Control of the
Concordia Seminary is not guaranteed by ecclesiastical
structures of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
for the seminary to carry on its educational function
as a graduate professional school of theology:

2. The freedom of the faculty to teach and publish re-
search is circumscribed in ways not defined in the
terms of a contract of employment:

3. Attention of students. faculty. and administration is
unduly diverted to matters unrelated to education for
the ministry.

At the same time the Commission on Accrediting imposed
the notation 5.3 on Concordia Theological Seminary, Spring-
field. “In this school, policies are unduly determined by
others than the trustees or faculty.”

Shortly after being informed of this action of the Com-
mission on Accrediting of the American Association of Theo-
logical Schools the Reverend Doctor Jacob A. O. Preus,
President of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. de-
cided to appoint a Task Force to study matters relating to
the probation of Concordia Seminary, St.Louis. Subse-
quently. the Board of Control of Concordia Seminary. St.
Louis, in its meeting of June 16 and 17, 1972. requested
President Preus and the Board for Higher Education to ini-
tiate the process for determining what needed to be done
to meet the requirements of the American Association of
Theological Schools. The Task Force was appointed in July,
1972, and consisted of Dr. Arthur M. Ahlschwede, executive
secretary of the Board for Higher Education of the LCMS,;
Edmund H. Happel, president of the Northern Illinois Dis-
trict of the LCMS and chairman of the Board of Control of
Concordia Teachers College. River Forest. Hl.: Dr. John W.
Klotz. academic dean of Concordia Senior College, Fort
Wayne, Ind.; Dr. Wilfred F. Kruse. professor of chemistry
and registrar emeritus at Concordia Teachers College. River
Forest: Dr. Herbert Mueller. secretary of the LCMS and
secretary of the Board of Directors of the LCMS: Dr. Harold
W. Otte, assistant to the president, Concordia College, St.
Paul, Minn.: Rev. Merlin S. Pohl, chairman of the Board for
Higher Education of the LCMS: Dr. Robert V. Schnabel,
president, Concordia College. Bronxville. N. Y.: Mr. Walter
F. Steinberg, principal, Luther High School South, Chicago,
and a member of the Board of Directors of LCMS: and Dr.
Paul A. Zimmerman, president, Concordia Lutheran College,
Ann Arbor. Mich. Dr. Preus appointed as Consultants to
mect with the Task Force as requested Dr. Albert G. Huegli,
president of Valparaiso University and an examiner for
North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools:
Dr. Richard J. Schultz. president of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Springfield: and Dr. John H. Tietjen. president
of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

In his letter of July 26, 1972, President Preus stated to
members of the Task Force:

Your primary assignment is to discuss the matter of the proba-

tion of Concordia Seminary and any possible implications that
this may have relative to the accreditation of our other schools.
To this I would add also the notation regarding the Springfield
seminary ... I will await your Report and whatever recom-
mendations you may have to offer.

Subsequently. in a letter to the members of the Task Force,
dated Aug. 3, 1972. Dr. Preus stated:

First of all, the Committee's task is to help the Synod maintain

the high standards of education we have been privileged to fol-

low throughout our 125-year history. . . Secondly. I am ask-
ing you to review very carefully the action recently taken by

AATS in placing a notation on Concordia Seminary. Springfield.

llinois . . . I would like to call attention to one other major

aspect of your assignment. That is. the task of very carefully
examining the rationale by which we in The Lutheran Church —

Missouri Synod administer our Synodical institutions.

Thus the Task Force was asked to study matters relating to
the probation of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; to consider
the implications of this action of the AATS for the Synod's
other seminary and for its colleges: to determine what
needed to be done to remove the probation which the AATS
had imposed: and to study these matters in the light of the
Svnod's educational philosophy and the philosophy by which
it governs its colleges and seminaries.

The Task Force met first on Aug. 10 and 11. 1972, at which
time Rev. Edmund H. Happel was elected chairman of the
Task Force and Dr. John W. Klotz, secretary. Subsequently.
the Task Force held six additional 2-day meetings: Oct. 3
and 4, 1972: Nov. 7 and 8: Dec. 4 and 5: Jan. 10 and 11, 1973:
Feb. 9 and 10: and March 5 and 6. Every member of the
Task Force attended at least six of the seven meetings: in
fact there were only two necessary absences. The Task
Force sought information, assistance and reactions from its
consultants and from Rey. Doctor George Loose, chairman
of the St. Louis Board of Control, Mr. Walter Dissen, secre-
tary of the St. Louis Board of Control. and Dr. Jesse Ziegler,
executive secretary of the AATS in the U.S. and Canada.
In addition, the chairman and secretary of the Task Force
conferred twice (Jan. 6, 1973, and Feb. 6, 1973) with a com-
mittee of the Commission on Accrediting of the AATS, con-
sisting of the chairman of the Commission on Accrediting.
Dr. Joseph I. McCord, president of Princeton Theological
Seminary: Rev. Dr. Austin DeVenny of Weston College
School of Theology: Dean Warren Groff of Bethany Sem-
inary: and Dr. Jesse Ziegler, executive secretary of the
AATS.

I. The Importance of Accreditation

The Task Force is unanimous in its judgment that con-
tinuing accreditation is of great importance to the Synod’s
education program, both of its seminaries and in its colleges.
Accreditation, however. must not be at the expense of the
integrity of the Synod or of its educational institutions.
Specifically, the Synod must forego any type of accreditation
which would dictate or circumscribe its doctrinal position.

There is no reason however why accreditation should
jeopardize the Synod’s doctrinal position or in any way limit
what is taught in its classrooms. The AATS goes to great
lengths to assure member schools that it will in no way
judge them on the basis of their doctrinal positions. It sug-
gests that limitations of academic freedom because of the
doctrinal position of the sponsoring church body be stated
in writing to prospective instructors, a requirement which
is reflected in the synodical Handbook, Section 6.53 d.

Accreditation is based on a recognition that an institution
has clearly defined objectives, has the resources for achiev-
ing these, and demonstrates that it is reaching its goals.
The seminaries and colleges of the Synod are providing a
quality education, and there is no reason why the stamp of
approval of accrediting agencies should not be sought for
these educational programs.

It should also be noted that there is a difference between
institutions which have never achieved accreditation and
those whose accreditation has been withdrawn. Where ac-
creditation is withdrawn. problems may be encountered
which are not encountered by an institution which has never
sought accreditation. The quality of the educational pro-
gram of an institution whose accreditation has been with-
drawn is more likely to be suspect. even though this sus-
picion may not be justified.

There are practical reasons for maintaining an accredited
system of colleges and seminaries. Those who are to teach
at the Synod’s institutions must pursue graduate study.