LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 146

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

146 ADMINISTRATION

The committee met with Missions staff representatives and
presented the proposed guidelines for fraternal discussions.
Various modifications were made to reflect some of the concerns
of the staff. However, the staff representatives still could not
agree with the Executive Committee and indicated they would
have to confer with the whole Missions staff.

The committee met with the Board of Control representatives
and presented the proposed guidelines for fraternal discussions
and the name of the proposed mediator. Both were accepted.

The committee met with the former faculty representatives
in an 8-hour session and presented the proposed guidelines for
fraternal discussions and the name of the proposed mediator.
The former faculty presented their concerns, which resulted
in a number of changes in the guidelines in an attempt to
accommodate them and make them more acceptable to the
former faculty. These were finalized the next day and sent to
the former faculty along with a proposal to begin discussions
March 25. The representatives indicated they would have to
discuss the guidelines with the full faculty to determine whether
or not they agreed to the procedure and mediator.

March 15

The committee met with the Board for Missions representa-
tives and presented the proposed guidelines for fraternal dis-
cussion. They were accepted.

The committee met again with Missions staff representatives
to review their proposed revisions to the guidelines. Another
document was then prepared incorporating a number of addi-
tional staff suggestions and transmitted to the staff.

March 19

The former faculty contacted the Executive Committee and
advised them they still did not agree with the committee’s
proposed guidelines for fraternal discussions but would consider
them further again next week. They reiterated being in favor
of anything leading to reconciliation, indicated they wanted
very much to talk to the Executive Committee again, and asked
that nothing except those two statements be reported to others
by either party.

March 20

A representative of the Executive Committee met with Mis-
sions staff representatives to brief them on the 2,600-year-old
history of mediation, to advise them of the methods which have
been most successful in many kinds of situations, and to try to
further refine the guidelines proposed by the Executive Com-
mittee. Again no agreement could be reached.

March 26

Since the former faculty had not agreed to the proposed
guidelines for fraternal discussions, such discussions which had
been proposed to commence March 25 did not occur. Therefore
the Executive Committee met for the third time on March 26
with the representatives of the former faculty who expressed
their disappointment that not all of their concerns were satisfied
in the revised guidelines. It was pointed out that numerous
changes had been made on the basis of past suggestions. How-
ever, there were still several concerns of the former faculty
which the Executive Committee agreed to consider further
before another meeting.

March 28 — 29

The Executive Committee met to discuss the Missions board
and staff situation. The committee felt that even after the suc-
cessful completion of mediation between the board and staff
for Missions the basic question of how to best approach the
Missions task would not necessarily be resolved. It concluded
that a better procedure was available and should be pursued.
Accordingly the Board of Directors approved the appointment
of a commission of five people ‘of proven churchmanship,
interest, competence, fairness and objectivity and whose
responsibilities will be to make a thorough study of the entire
mission operation for the purpose of assessing the efficacy of
its present operation and further to propose to the Board of
Directors and the Board for Missions recommendations as to
objectives, purposes, goals, structure, operation and any other
aspect necessary to determine how the church’s mission can best

be served.” It is intended that this commission will solicit input
from various parties including the sister churches. This com-
mission is to be responsible to the Board of Directors. The
Executive Committee met with representatives of the board and
staff for Missions to communicate the Board of Directors deci-
sion. It also encouraged the board and staff to proceed with
fraternal discussions so that a God-pleasing reconciliation could
take place.

The Executive Committee also further revised the guidelines
for fraternal discussions on the seminary matters, communicated
them to the former faculty, and asked for an early meeting.

April 3

The Executive Committee met by telephone to assess the
current situation. Since no response had been received from the
former faculty on the Executive Committee’s March 29 invitation
to meet with them, a representative of the former faculty was
contacted, and an invitation was extended to meet the evening
of April 5.

April 4-5

The Executive Committee met to begin the process of select-
ing the names of qualified people for the Mission Study Com-
mission. Various areas of expertise were to be represented.

The Executive Committee also reviewed once again the
discussions and results of all the meetings to date relative to
the fraternal discussions on the seminary matter. It again
redrafted the guidelines for fraternal discussions in order to
make them more acceptable to the former faculty.

The committee then met with Board of Control representa-
tives to discuss these guidelines. They concurred with them. This
was followed by a meeting with the former faculty representa-
tives. They still had exceptions to the guidelines. The numerous
changes to the document to accommodate the former faculty
were again pointed out. It was reiterated that the proposed
fraternal discussions under the guidelines is not a labor-manage-
ment approach but rather one that has been used for several
thousand years to settle a great variety of disputes and that the
proposed guidelines are essentially those used by the major
mediation societies throughout the world. The Executive Com-
mittee also pointed out that time is of the essence since the
Board of Control is faced with the necessity of filling the faculty
positions. The former faculty representatives indicated the prior
draft of the guidelines had not been shared with the faculty
and since spring recess was the next week, they did not know
just when they would be ready to consider the latest proposal.

April 9

The Executive Committee in a conference call was updated
on the current Missions situation. An invitation was also ex-
tended to the former faculty to meet with the committee on
April 19.

April 19-20

It was reported at this meeting that the former faculty repre-
sentatives had advised the Executive Committee the prior day
that they had not fully considered the latest proposal of the
committee and had not taken it to the full faculty, so a meeting
at this time would not be productive. The Executive Committee
asked its vice-chairman to contact a representative of the former
faculty and stress again the urgency of beginning the fraternal
discussions.

At the request of the synodical headquarters staff, the Execu-
tive Committee met with staff representatives to discuss some of
their concerns.

The Executive Committee selected the members of the Mis-
sion Study Commission.

May 2

The Executive Committee met with representatives of the
former faculty for the fifth time. After much discussion, it was
decided that since the group could not agree on the guidelines
for fraternal discussions, an initial meeting be held with a
mutually agreed-upon mediator to discuss the objectives and
procedures for fraternal discussions. It appeared that consensus
had been reached, and after the meeting the Executive Com-
mittee drafted the following revised “General Guidelines for