LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 305

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

HIGHER EDUCATION 305

and suspended them from their duties was totally without basis
in fact. The faculty’s letter was wrong in another respect: The
classrooms of Concordia Seminary were not empty, fora handful
of professors continued to teach the small group of students that
preferred the continuation of classes to the moratorium.

Letters by the faculty and replies by President Preus re-
ceived wide distribution throughout the church. The faculty's
Jan. 26 letter to President Preus (which reached him only 10
minutes before a reporter called to ask for his comments} made
it very clear that the real purpose of the faculty-student walk-
out was to use the force of numbers to compel desired action
from the Board of Control and the administration of the Synod.
That letter repeated the false assumption that “in suspending
John H. Tietjen, the Board of Conjrol suspended us.” President
Preus’ Jan. 28 response urged the faculty to carry out the re-
sponsibilities to which they had been called. Pointing out the
various means the Synod has for the expression of dissent,
President Preus stated: ‘I hoped that the time might be spent,
after the initial reaction to convention action, for quiet reflec-
tion, for discussion of the doctrinal issues among yourselves. for
careful study of New Orleans resolutions, for possible changes of
mind on the part of those at least whose Fact Finding Committee
interviews were so much better theologically than some por-
tions of the hastily drawn up and briefly discussed material in
the two ‘Faithful’ documents. But apparently none of this took
place.” His letter suggested that the faculty members could
utilize better procedures than the moratorium to clear them-
selves, particularly with reference to Res. 3-09. But his plea went
unheeded.

On Feb. 7 Prof. Robert Bertram made it clear to a large
crowd gathered at Christ Church Cathedral to welcome students
back from telling their story throughout the Synod that the
striking faculty was committed to providing classes and other
services during the spring quarter and in the fall of 1974 as well.
On Feb. 12, 3 weeks after the moratorium began, the faculty
issued an ultimatum to the Board of Control: If positive steps
were not taken to reverse the decisions of the past months, then
on Feb. 19 theological education “will begin again,” but “it
will not be under your auspices and not at the customary
location until there is a satisfactory resolution of the issues
facing us.” Five demands were made of the board: reinstate
John H. Tietjen as president, reinstate the department heads,
issue a contract to Paul Goetting, reverse the retirement policy,
and recognize that the faculty teaches in accord with the Synod's
doctrinal standard.

It was the last of these conditions that was emphasized most
strongly, particularly by students. Already on Jan. 21, at the
beginning of the walkout, the board pledged “to make all de-
liberate haste in resolving the implications of Resolution 3-09
of New Orleans over against the faculty.” Students or faculty
members who pleaded that faculty members be identified, and
then cleared or charged, sometimes seemed to be totally un-
aware of the fact that the positions condemned in New Orleans
were clearly identified in Res. 3-09 on the basis of public state-
ments signed by the professors. Moreover, the board had not
deliberately delayed in resolving the status of the faculty
majority, as some charged. While expecting the faculty itself to
take the initiative in this matter, the board was also awaiting
clarification from the Synod’s Commission on Const'tutional
Matters on the proper procedures to be followed in implement-
ing Res. 3-09. That clarification came on Feb. 12, 1974, when the
CCM adopted a ruling making it obligatory for the Board of
Control to carry on an interview process and a study of the
documentation with each faculty member on all of the many
complex doctrinal issues treated in Res. 3-09. From the stand-
point of available time alone it would have been impossible to
accomplish that task before Feb. 19, the deadline demanded by
the faculty majority in its ultimatum of Feb. 12.

In the opinion of the Board of Control, the other conditions
of the faculty were also lacking in plausibility. The board's
retirement policy was fully in keeping with the synodical Bylaws
and made ample provision for ascertaining the situation of each
individual before possible implementation. The nonrenewal of
Professor Goetting’s contract not only followed the provisions
of the Bylaws but was accompanied by an action that would
have provided for a later review of his case. Department heads
serve by administrative appointment rather than by contract,
and it is not unusual or inconsiderate to change department
heads when a new president assumes his office. Dr. Tietjen’s

suspension, as explained above, had taken place according to
the very carefully prescribed provisions of the synodical By-
laws. Moreover, it did not imply condemnation or guilt, as the
faculty claimed, but rather meant that the charges against him
were “serious enough to threaten immediate harm to the ac-
cused or others.’ (Bylaw 6.79 d)

Quite apart from its conclusion that the demands made by
the faculty in its Feb. 12 ultimatum were either impossible or
implausible, it was the board’s firm conviction that the govern-
ing board of an institution cannot allow itself to be governed
by an ultimatum from its faculty, nor should it be intimidated by
the use of group pressure as represented in a faculty-student
walkout or the threat to start a new institution if their demands
were not met. The faculty's actions were in effect a demand to
take over essential constitutional responsibilities of the Board
of Control. The use of such pressure tactics and threats is par-
ticularly questionable in a Synod that treasures the sanctity
of the divine call and is a church body whose members have
agreed to use the provisions and procedures of the Constitution
and Bylaws to express their dissent and to seek a redress
of grievances.

On Feb. 17 the Board of Control asked the faculty to indicate
by noon of the next day that they would resume their teaching
on Feb. 19, or they would be found to have breached their con-
tracts with Concordia Seminary. There was no response by noon
of Feb. 18. Legally, the majority of faculty members had
breached their contracts: theologically, they had set aside their
divine ealls from The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod to
teach at Concordia Seminary. On Feb. 19, true to their ultima-
tum of Feb. 12, they founded an opposition seminary with more
than 400 former students of Concordia Seminary as their student
body.

Faculty salaries were discontinued as of Jan. 31, 1974, and
the obligation to provide housing was declared to be ended as
of Feb. 28. However, the board immediately resolved to extend
housing privileges to the end of March where needed. As a
matter of fact. the Board of Control continued to provide free
housing for a number of former faculty members for several
months, the last former faculty member moving from seminary
housing at the end of August.

The 100 students, five professors, and numerous staff per-
sons who remained to carry out their callings at Concordia
Seminary in the remaining months of the school year faced a
gigantic task. Many records and other items could not be lo-
cated, friends were gone. and much work remained. Under the
gracious benediction of God, all essential operations were
maintained and the school year was completed without the
sacrifice of a single program. By graduation day, May 24, 1974,
it was evident that Concordia Seminary had survived. The ill-
conceived attempt to gain demands through group pressure
tactics, self-described as a movement of protest and confession,
had failed. The Lord of the church had permitted Concordia
Seminary to complete its 135th year of training men for the
ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Il. Concordia Seminary Today

The task of rebuilding Concordia Seminary began immedi-
ately after the exodus of faculty and students on Feb. 18, 1974.
In the coming months it became necessary not only to continue
the school's programs under the most adverse circumstances
but to make plans for the future of the seminary. Potential teach-
ing candidates had to be screened, processed, and called. Stu-
dents needed to be recruited. The seminary’s continued ac-
creditation was in doubt. The loss of students meant a steep
reduction in financial resources. Dozens of persons in new
positions of responsibility had to learn the way. All this had to
be accomplished in an atmosphere of negative publicity, con-
siderable misunderstanding. and extreme tension. However,
by the blessing of our gracious God and the herculean efforts
of many people, Concordia Seminary continued with its planned
summer programs and opened its doors for the 1974 —75 school
year with a student body of almost 200 and a faculty and execu-
tive staff of nearly 25.

The following paragraphs report the present situation at
Concordia Seminary and discuss items of special concern as we
face the future.

Personnel

Board of Control. Members of the Board of Control during