LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 109

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SEMINARY ISSUES 109

Special Visiting Team and the action of the Commission on
Accrediting, for instance, leave one with the impression that
the Visiting Team and the commission were of the opinion
that changes had taken place in the ecclesiastical structures
of the Synod by which it carries out its theological education
program at the seminaries. The report of the Special Visiting
Team states:
The Committee was directly concerned initially with possible
violations of Standard Five -—— Administration and Control —
since Concordia had. from 1963 to 1969. carried Notation 5.3,
and since the reports at hand dealt with the possible infringe -
ment of the independence of the Board of Control.

It should be noted that no changes have been made in those
articles of the synodical Constitution and Bylaws which re-
late to these matters since the time of the original notation
and since its removal. Moreover, a number of synodical
presidents in carrying out their responsibilities for doctrinal
supervision under Article XI of the synodical Constitution
have been directly involved with the faculties and Boards of
Control of the St. Louis seminarv. The actions of Presidents
J. W. Behnken and Oliver R. Harms were carried out both
immediately prior to the accreditation by the AATS and
immediately subsequent to accreditation. President J. A. oO.
Preus’ actions were merely a continuation of the exercise
of constitutional responsibilities which had already been ini-
tiated by his predecessors.

Another example: the report of the Visiting Team com-
ments on the response of President Preus on Oct. 23, 1970,
to the request of the Board of Control on Oct. 19. 1970, that
certain procedures be followed in the Fact Finding Investi-
gation. The report of the Visiting Committee states:

President Preus resoonded on Oct. 23, agreeing to certain con-

ditions. rejecting others, and ignoring at least one. What wags

ignored was the request that investigation be limited to writings

“in the public domain.’ excluding study pavers and materials

for discussion. What was reiected was a meeting between Presi-

dent Preus and the Faculty. and most important the limitation
of the definition of doctrine to Article IT of the Constitution of

Synod, which requires subscription to the Word of God and

the Confessions of the Book of Concord. President Preus in-

sisted that Synodically-adopted doctrinal statements and reso-
lutions also be the basis for inquiry.

The report leaves the impression that many of the requests
of the Board of Control were rejected: as a matter of fact.
most of the requests of the Board of Control were accepted
by the synodical President. As to limiting the investigation
to writings “in the public domain.” President Preus’ re-
sponse of Oct. 23 may have given the imoression that this
request was being ignored. The fact of the matter is that
this was not his intention. Moreover, this request was
honored by the Fact Finding Committee. since in no case
were even student class notes, which certainly represent
public teaching and are “in the public domain,” included in
the investigation. Contrary to the impression which the
report gives, the Fact Finding Committee did. indeed, limit
itself to writings “in the public domain.” except in one case
in which the professor voluntarily submitted his study paper
to show his position. The Board of Control, the Fact Finding
Committee, and President Preus were agreed that it would
have been inappropriate for the Fact Finding Committee to
deal with study papers and materials for discussion not
intended as final positions.

The report of the Visiting Team that President Preus
rejected the proposal of the meeting between himself and
the faculty is factually correct. but the Visiting Team may
well have failed to understand the President's reasons for
this. Dr. Preus has stated as his reason for declining this
request the inability to get a pledge of confidentiality from
the administration of the seminary. It was his judgment
that the result of any such meeting would be that the
church, the seminary, and the synodical President would
all have been subjected to further unpleasant publicity.
He was told by President Tietjen that, in all honesty. there
could be no assurance of confidentiality, because there was
likelihood that what might take place in the meeting would
be reported to the public press.

So far as the limitation of the investigation to the defini-
tion of doctrine in Article II of the synodical Constitution,
it should be clear that this limitation was respected. On
July 6, 1970, in a meeting with the seminary president, the
academic dean, and department chairmen, Dr. Preus stated
that the standard of the investigation would be “Scripture
and the Confessions.” He went on to explain that the

doctrinal statements of the Synod might also be involved
as they apply Scripture to various theological issues. On
Oct. 23, 1970, he wrote to the Board of Control that it is
“unthinkable that the doctrine and life of the seminary are
to be evaluated apart from the Lutheran Confessions, as
stated in Article IJ of the Synod's Constitution.” On Nov.
4. 1970. he wrote to President Tietjen: “Evaluation is to
take place on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Con-
fessions — Article II of the Constitution.” Because of con-
tinuing confusion as to the basis on which the investigation
was being conducted, public announcement was made _ in
the Lutheran Witness Reporter. Nov. 1, 1970, that: “The
criterion by which the Fact Finding Committee will ask
its questions is the biblical, plus confessional position of
Synod, as set forth in Article II of the Synod’s Constitution.”
This was repeated to Dr. Tietjen and the three seminary
administrators in the meeting of Nov. 11, 1970, and on
March 21, 1971, it was once more repeated in a joint state-
ment by President Preus. Dr. Tietjen. the Fact Finding
Committee, and the Seminary Faculty Committee.

The Visiting Team may not have understood procedures
as they actually existed in The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod. They state. for example. that the Board for Higher
Education is “appointed by the synodical President,” with
the implication that this arrangement gives great power
in the control! of synodical education to the synodical Presi-
dent through his power to appoint the coordinating board.
The statement is partially correct according to the Handbook.
Section 6.01. However, the phrase which follows in Section
6.01 is extremely important. since it adds “subiect to the
approval of the Council of Presidents.” Thus, the Council
of Presidents has veto power over candidates for apnoint-
ment by the synodical President to the Board for Higher
Education. It is a fact that the Council of Presidents has
exercised this veto power over presidential candidates to
the Board for Higher Education. The present arrangement,
of course. is being replaced by a procedure in which the
Board for Higher Education will be elected by the Synod.

Other examples of misunderstanding and misinformation
might also be cited. It is auite evident that the action of
the Commission on Accrediting was based on both an in-
adequate understanding of the educational philosophy of
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod and of structure
and governance in The Lutheran Church — Missouri Svnod
and at Concordia Seminarv. and on misinformation which
the report of the Visiting Team contains.

The Commission on Accrediting states as a second reason
for placing Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. on probation that
“The freedom of the faculty to teach and publish research
is circumscribed in ways not defined in the terms of a con-
tract of employment” and goes on to cite as a third reason
for imposing probation that “Attention of students, faculty.
and administration is unduly diverted to matters unrelated
to education for the ministry.” It is the judgment of the
Task Force that if the Bylaw changes we are recommending
are adopted and if our other recommendations are imple-
mented these reasons will no longer exist. We are recom-
mending, for example, that a statement on academic re-
sponsibility and limitations of academic freedom because
of the religious and confessional nature of the seminary and
of the Synod's colleges be included in every call and con-
tract. We believe too that the various changes in the syn-
odical Handbook which we are proposing will clarify pro-
cedures and eliminate some of the confusion which brought
about the judgment of the Visiting Team that students,
faculty, and administration had been unduly diverted to
matters unrelated to education for ministry.

As we review the report of the Visiting Team it is the
conviction of the Task Force that an appeal to the Executive
Committee of AATS, acting as a Board of Review under
Article VII of the constitution of the AATS in the U.S. and
Canada would have been in order. The Task Force sought
to discuss the report of the AATS Special Visiting Team
with the Team itself and with the executive secretary of the
AATS but the Task Force was told that such a meeting
would be inappropriate and out of keeping with AATS
policy. The Task Force feels that an appeal would still be
in order: we do not, however, recommend it at this time.
The Task Force has prepared resource material which may
be used should an appeal become desirable or necessary,
and we are making this available to you.