LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 156

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

a

156 SEMINARY ISSUES

3-159

To Ask President for Report on Actions
of Council of Presidents Under Article XI B 2

The Council of Presidents has repeatedly refused to de-
fend the President of Synod against allegations that have

On April 4, 1972, the faculty responded to Dr. Preus’ A
Statement of . . Confessional Principles, by saying: A
Statement has a spirit alien to Lutheran Confessional
Theology.” |. . “The promulgation of A Statement is di-
visive.””

In spite of efforts at that time to encourage the Council
of Presidents to Support the theology which was enunciated
in Dr. Preus’ A Statement of... Confessional Principles. the
Council of Presidents refused.

On September 8, Dr. John Tietjen in a public letter to all
pastors in the Synod wrote: “We have grave misgivings
about the doctrinal position of our adversaries and we have

but over our adversaries’ basic understanding of the nature
of the Gospel itself...”

Such a statement is the virtual charge of heresy, since
Dr. Tietjen specifically states that it is not about some minor

its very nature is used in confessions of those who oppose
the pure doctrine of the Gospel, namely, “our adversaries.”

In the publication of the document entitled, “Fact Find-
ing Or Fault Finding.” the following statements were made
with regard to the persons who comprise the Fact Finding
Committee and also, by implication, the President of the
Synod:

The views of Scripture which lie behind the investigation

and shape its results are less than Scriptural. (P, 2}

The theology which lies behind the inquiry and the report

by whose standard the theology of the faculty was measured is
un-Lutheran. [P. 2]

».. the report of the Fact Finding Committee clearly shows
that the confessional bosition of a faculty member was being
measured according to a theological yardstick established by
President Preus and his committee . .~ it is essential to know
something about the yardstick by which the faculty is being
measured. .. | Far more serious than the prejudicial nature of
the inquiry .. . is the un-Lutheran thrust of the theology with
which the inquiry was conducted. . Le 3 is
incipient distortion of the Biblical Gospel of our Lord and Sav-
ior, Jesus Christ. {P. 12]

A theology whose basic thrust is un-Lutheran underlies the
report of the President's committee... 2 [P, 34: underlining
added}

At the Sept, 18—21. 1972, meeting of the Council of Presi-
dents, Dr. John Tietjen addressed the council and stated:

Concordia Seminarv's faculty has been Judged and found want-
ing by a theological position that is sub-Biblical and un-
Lutheran. .. . the theology that underlies the report is basically
not Lutheran. | Minutes of the Council of Presidents, Sept. 18 to
21, 1972. p. 15]

At that same meeting in September the majority of the
council was unwilling to make any effort to exonerate the
President of the Synod of the charge of being “un-Lutheran.
un-confessional, sub-Biblical” in his theology or in any way
to attempt to defend the President against the public accusa-
tion that his theology was a distortion of the Gospel of our
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This represents a refusal on the part of the Council of
Presidents to follow its own suggested Procedure in the case
of the President of the Synod. The suggested procedure that
was adopted by the council with regard to the faculty of the
seminary stated, “that the accused be given the chance to
face his accuser.” In spite of the plea of the President of the
Synod that those charges either be substantiated by the
persons who make them or that they be retracted, the Coun-
cil of Presidents refused to act in any way but simply by
its silence allowed the charges to stand. This is a clear vio-
lation of the principles of justice even in a secular court let
alone those principles which are laid down by the Word
of God in Holy Scripture.

Furthermore, the December 19, 1972, meeting of the
Council of Presidents was unwilling to adopt a simple state-

ment that we find “nothing contrary to scripture and the
confessions in the doctrinal content of A Statement of Scrip-
tural and Confessional Principles.” This was not a request
to support the statement, nor was it a request to agree with
the formulations of the statement, but simply to publicly
acknowledge that the President of the Synod is not guilty of

that of a subversion of the Gospel itself.

In spite of the offer of the President of the Synod to be
tried on the charges of being un-Lutheran, un-Biblical, un-

to exonerate or to convict the President of such charges. It
has by its failure to act implicitly agreed with the charges
and has deprived the President of the Synod of “the pro-
tection of his rights” as guaranteed to every pastor in the
Synod by the Constitution. Such action has in effect al-
lowed charges to stand which have not been given substance
by those who have made them and must be construed as be-
ing completely contrary to, the evangelical guiding of the
Spirit of God mentioned in 1Cor.13, “Love does not re-
joice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.”

Such action is in effect a conspiracy of silence which al-
lows the President of the Synod to be publicly pilloried and
his good name and reputation destroyed within the church
without that due Process that is guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion of the Synod.

Following the meeting of the Council of Presidents, Feb.
28, 1973 — at which meeting no one except members of the
Council of Presidents were present — an article appeared in
the March 1 St. Louis Post Dispatch written by James E,
Adams, religious editor of the Post Dispatch, indicating that
he had access to the information which could only have
come from a member of the Council of Presidents. The in-
terpretation which the religion editor placed upon the in-
formation which was made available to him, states:

the council's move this week indicates an attempt to establish

itself as an independent counter foree against the conservative

minded Dr. Preus who is up for re-election as president this
summer,

If that interpretation of the action of the council is allowed to
stand without being corrected, the council is in clear viola-
tion of the Constitution of the Synod, which states: Article
XI para, A, Section 1,

“The officers of the Synod must assume only such rights
as have bene expressly conferred upon them by the Synod
and in everything pertaining to their rights and the per-
formance of their duties they are responsible to the Synod.”

Futhermore, under Article XI, para, B, Duties of the
President —1, “The President has the supervision regard-
ing the doctrine and administration of . . . d. all district
presidents.”

The refusal of the council to support the President of the
Synod or to submit to his supervision of their doctrine and
administration destroys the ordered process guaranteed by
the Constitution, divides the church. removes the possi-~
bility of any kind of doctrinal supervision within the Synod,
is productive of chaos and disorder, is clearly political in
nature, and constitutes a violation of the statement of ethics,
adopted by the council and by the Synod,

Therefore we request the Synod in convention assembled
at New Orleans to ask the President of Synod to report on
the matter of the Council of Presidents according to the
Constitution of the Synod, Article XI, Par. B, Point 2,

It is the President's duty to see to it that all the aforemen-
tioned lineluding District Presidents] act in accordance with
the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who in any way de-
part from it. and. if such admonition is not heeded, to report
such cases to the Synod.

Boarp or Directors

Montana District

George F. Wollenburg, President
Paul Blunck, Secretary