LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 304

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

304 HIGHER EDUCATION

ary such a response was no doubt considered to be unnecessary.
However, the board must report that to this date the protest
statement has not been withdrawn or modified in any way.

B. Resolution 3-09

Res. 3-09 of the 1973 synodical convention, which dealt with
a number of published statements of the former faculty majority
and condemned several positions as false doctrine, directed
“that these matters be turned over to the Board of Control of
Concordia Seminary, St.Louis (1974 Proceedings. p. 139).
Before taking action to implement Res. 3-09, the board waited
to see whether the faculty, individually or collectively, would
initiate a response. In its Nov. 19, 1973, meeting the Board of
Control resolved io undertake a doctrinal review of course
syllabi and cited as its reason the fact that ‘actions taken by
the 1973 synodical convention, particularly in Resolutions 3-01
and 3-09. have not yet received an appropriate response from
the faculty.” In the same meeting the Board of Control asked
Dr. Tietjen to explain to the board in writing “the failure of the
faculty to date to respond appropriately to the action of the 1973
synodical convention in Resolution 3-09."

In the board’s next meeting. Jan. 7, 1974, Dr. Tietjen told
the Board of Control that the faculty had responded to New
Orleans Res. 3-09 by its protest and that the faculty rejected that
resolution’s description of its teaching. In response to pleas by
faculty and students who were about to go on strike, the Board
of Control in its Jan. 20-21, 1974, meeting adopted a resolution
pledging “to make all deliberate haste in resolving the implica-
tions of Resolution 3-09 of New Orleans over against the faculty.”
From the actions of the Board of Control it is clear that the board
expected the initiative to come from the faculty itself in clarify-
ing its stance over against positions condemned in Res. 3-09.
However, other than the July 24. 1973. protest, it is also clear
that the faculty took no initiative to comply with the board's
expectations.

In the meantime the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional
Matters responded to a number of questions about Res. 3-09 by
issuing a ruling on Feb. 12, 1974. This ruling stated that Res.
3-09 condemned “the position defined as the stance of the
faculty majority” but that it had not condemned the “doctrinal
position of the faculty as a whole and/or of each individual
faculty member.’’ Moreover. the CCM ruling stated that “the
Board of Control is now obligated through an interview process
and through a study of the documentation which has been de-
veloped to determine which faculty members hold positions
rejected in Resolution 3-09 and to deal with them according
to those procedures provided in Bylaw 6.79 e et seg. which are
pertinent.” The CCM ruling meant that the Board of Control
had to initiate an interview process with each of the faculty
members to consider each of the many complex doctrinal issues
treated in Res. 3-09.

However, the departure of a majority of the faculty mem-
bers on Feb. 18, 1974, removed them from the supervision of the
Board of Control and made it impossible for the board to carry
out such an interview process with them (as the CCM noted in
its ruling of May 17, 1974). Four faculty members implicated
by Res. 3-09 remained on the Concordia Seminary faculty: three
of them were on leave and the other was not teaching at the time
of the exodus. On June 17, 1974, the board made provision for
an interview process for these men. Three of these men have
since left the faculty without completing the interview process.
and the fourth is presently on leave. In short, circumstances
have made it impossible for the Board of Control to implement
Res. 3-09 with the members of the former faculty majority.

C. The Tietjen Case

Dr. John H. Tietjen, president of Concordia Seminary since
1969, was removed from office by the Board of Control on Oct.
12, 1974, in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw 6.79, after
being found guilty as charged by Pastors Leonard Buelow and
Harlan Harnapp.

Dr. Tietjen had stated that he would not appeal his case, and
he had not done so at the expiration of the 90-day period pro-
vided for that purpose. As provided in the synodical Bylaws.
the transcript of the board's hearing was turned over to “the
District President of the accused" (Bylaw 6.79 1) for further
action. This was done in March 1975, shortly after the Synod’s
Commission on Constitutional Matters ruled that the case should
go to the District President under whom Dr. Tietjen carried out

the responsibilities of his call as seminary president (Missouri),
rather than to the president of the District in which he held his
personal membership (English).

Because the charges in this case closely paralleled the con-
cerns included under 1973 Resolution 3-12A, the board did not
institute independent action toward Dr. Tietjen on the basis of
that resolution, nor does it feel that further action on that reso-
lution is necessary at this time.

With the transmission of the transcript to the District Presi-
dent as provided in Bylaw 6.79 |, the Board of Control concluded
its responsibilities for the handling of the Tietjen case. Because
it takes seriously the synodical bylaw prohibiting publicity until
a case is concluded (Bylaw 5.31 j), and because it does not want
to impair any further adjudication, the board has refrained from
publicizing its handling of the case and it has not publicly re-
plied to the many serious accusations lodged against the Board
by Dr. Tietjen and others, even though it is persuaded that it
has exercised its responsibilities to all concerned in a proper
Christian and legal manner.

The board is still not free to publicize its handling of this
case. On Feb. 21-22, 1975, the Synod’s Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters ruled that “his removal from office is final.”’ But
the commission went on to state with reference to Dr. Tietjen’s
possible removal from membership in the Synod: ‘Since the
Board of Control is obligated under Bylaw 6.79 | to forward the
accusation to the District President, no publicity should be given
the case beyond the simple announcement by the Board of Con-
trol of the action taken and of its basis (Bylaw 5.31 j).” The
board has sought additional clarification from the commission
on the implications of this ruling.

D. Faculty and Student Exodus

The faculty's protest of July 24, 1973, set the mood for the
seminary campus for the 1973—74 school year. Posters, campus
newspapers, and the activities of special committees encouraged
the community to be prepared to take strong and concerted
action. In late October a well-organized outreach effort found
15 professors traveling throughout much of the Synod to ex-
plain their position over against the synodical administration
and its effort to preserve the doctrinal position of the church
body: such explanations were frequently negative in character.
The mood on campus became quite tense after the board’s
November meeting. In that meeting the board made provisions
for implementing the Synod’s retirement policy for faculty
members who have reached the age of 65 (cf. Bylaw 6.82 f),
decided to review the doctrinal content of course syllabi, and
resolved not to renew the contract of Prof. Paul Goetting. On
Dec. 13 more than 400 students signed ‘With One Voice,” a
document protesting board actions and suggesting that the stu-
dents’ continuation at the seminary was somewhat tenuous.
With its false premise that the faculty majority had been ‘“un-
justly condemned as false teachers not to be tolerated within
the church of God,” the document illustrated the level of con-
fusion and misunderstanding that prevailed on campus more
than 2 months before the creation of Seminex as a protest
institution.

Matters came to a head on Jan. 20, when Dr. Tietjen was
suspended by the Board of Control according to the provisions
of Bylaw 6.79 d. On the next day a student resolution declared
“‘a moratorium on all classes until such time as the seminary
Board of Control officially and publicly declares which mem-
bers of the faculty, if any, are to be considered as false teachers.”
Later that day the faculty also went on strike. In a Jan. 22 letter
addressed to President Preus they accused the Board of Control
of emptying the classrooms and silencing ‘the teaching of the
Word of God on our campus.” Promising that ‘‘there will be
empty classrooms at Concordia Seminary” until uncertainty
regarding their confession and teaching was cleared up, the
faculty and staff went on to reveal the false premise for their
action. They stated: ‘‘-By condemning President Tietjen’s con-
fessional stand and suspending him from office, the Board of
Control has condemned our own confession and has suspended
all of us from our duties as teachers and executive staff mem-
bers.” The faculty misinterpreted “suspension” according to
Bylaw 6.79 d as condemnation, when in fact the Bylaw makes
it very clear that suspension means only that the board regards
the charges as “serious enough to threaten immediate harm to
the accused or others.” Moreover, the faculty’s judgment that
the Board of Control had condemned the faculty’s confession