LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 308

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

308 HIGHER EDUCATION

Gospel of Jesus Christ, fidelity to the Holy Scriptures and the
Lutheran Confessions, service to The Lutheran Church-— Mis-
souri Synod, a positive approach to the task of theological
education. and openness to the suggestions of others in coping
with the numerous problems of the church and society in this
contemporary age. We continue to solicit the prayers and sup-
port of the Synod for the task that lies ahead.

Board of Control

Ewald J. Otto, Chairman

Walter C. Dissen, Secretary

Ralph A. Bohlmann, Acting Executive Officer

M6-06A

Minority Report. Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.

The undersigned members of the Board of Control of Con-
cordia Seminary, St. Louis, with a combined record of service
to the board extending over 34 years, and a combined record
of over 70 vears in elective offices in the church, find ourselves
in a painful dilemma.

To submit a minority report to the convention or not? That
is the question over which we have agonized for weeks. We
know the negative connotations which frequently are attached
to minority reports. Often they serve only to make a bad situa-
tion worse.

We think of the minority “Report of Some Members of
Board of Control" and the “Supplemental Report’ which were
submitted to the New Orleans convention (Conrention Work-
book. pp. 100 to 107). No doubt well intended. these reports
must share in the responsibility for plunging our beloved Synod
into the chaos in which it finds itself today. Surely there must
have been a better way to serve our Lord Jesus Christ and to
edify His church.

It is with fear and trembling. therefore. that we have decided
to address yet another minority report to our brothers and sis-
ters in Christ at the Anaheim convention. We do so because
our consciences would not permit us to do otherwise. To remain
silent in the presence of great wrong would be disloyalty to the
trust the church has placed in us. We pray our gracious Lord
that what we are presenting comes from hearts filled with love
for Him and for all of His redeemed—hearts that are moved
by unswerving loyalty to the church of Christ which He has
purchased with His own blood.

2-Year Trauma

The draft of the Board Report to the Anaheim convention
which we have before us contains the sentence: "The board
assures the Synod that it has always endeavored to act in a
fraternal. evangelical. and responsible manner.’ We deny that
statement categorically! In fact. words fail us to describe the
atmosphere which prevailed at many of the meetings of the
board since New Orleans.

For the signatories to this report the years since New Orleans
have been a 2-year trauma. Already during the first meeting
after New Orleans it became evident that we were confronted
by an attitude which could not be changed by reason or evan-
gelical persuasion. The majority seemed intent on doing what
it had determined to do, no matter what the cost in human
values and no matter what its actions might mean to the Synod.

Again and again we appealed for action that would be more
in conformity with the Savior's injunction “that ve love one an-
other. as I have loved you” (John 15:12). But again and again
love was construed as a sign of weakness and our pleadings
went unheeded. Again and again the undersigned, for reasons
of conscience, had to disassociate themselves from board de-
cisions by having our negative votes recorded. Twice 5 mem-
bers of the 11-member board submitted formal, written pro-
tests to the board because of its loveless procedures tin Novem-
ber 1973 and February 1974), but to no avail. What purported
to be a “discussion” of our formal protests did not take place
until September 1974. Please note these dates. We found that
we were confronted by an unreasoning mind-set. We have no
doubt that the members of the board were sincere in their
intent, but we must in all conscience disassociate ourselves
from the procedures they employed.

We admit to our shame. and we ask our loving God for His

forgiveness through the merits of His Son, but we owe it to the
church to report: Some of our meetings were bitter beyond
endurance: on one occasion members left the meeting because
they could no longer “take it’’: there were times when members
resorted to shouting and angry name-calling: and on one occa-
sion, when the chairman invited a member of the minority to
close the meeting with prayer, the member felt in conscience
bound to decline because he could not honestly ask the Lord
of the church to bless the loveless actions of the board majority.

Clearly, the Board of Control has been a board out of control
since New Orleans. Some of the most pivotal decisions were
passed by a 6 to 5 or 5 to 4 vote. The smaller minority vote must
be explained in this way: One of the members of the board
minority was forbidden by his personal physician to expose
himself to the almost unendurable pressures of board meetings
and on occasion had to absent himself. Only rarely (and this
usually in unimportant matters) did votes cross over to the
opposing side. We are not. of course. opposed to majority rule.
but majority rule presupposes meaningful dialog. Again and
again this indispensable ingredient was tragically absent.

Dreary Adjectives

Discretion tells us that we should not spread on these pages
a detailed bill of particulars. We feel, however, that we should
list just a few actions of the board which will serve to illustrate
the mind-set of the board majority since New Orleans. We
stand ready to document our assertions before the appropriate
convention floor committee. Unfortunately. none of the signa-
tories to this report will represent the board at the Anaheim
convention. As we review the actions of the board since New
Orleans, we regret to report that many of these actions can be
described only by the following list of dreary adjectives (some
to a greater. some to a lesser extent): loveless. unbrotherly,
unethical, vindictive, precipitous, provocative. ill-advised. and
unworthy of the Christian name.

1

An example of unethical procedure. Before a given meeting
a detailed agenda was mailed to all members. When the meeting
got under way. it became evident that substantial changes had
been made in the agenda. Majority members had been provided
with copies of the changes in advance. Minority members had
received no notice of the changes and protested vehemently.
On one occasion minority members were given 15 minutes to
read the voluminous material, including lengthy resolutions
relating to the then president of the seminary.

Just as there is danger of The Lutheran Church ~ Missouri
Synod being confronted with the reality of a “church within
a church,” so there is a distinct possibility of our St. Louis semi-
nary being run by a “board within a board.” In fact, some of
us think that the possibility is even now a present reality. Six
men. not 11, are controlling the destiny of Concordia Seminary.
St. Louis.

It is because we want publicly to disassociate ourselves
from some of the key decisions of the board majority since New
Orleans that we submit this minority report.

2

Lovelessness has been the hallmark of many of the board
actions. Men, called by God to serve in the holy ministry and
as professors at our seminary. were treated as mere cogs in an
ecclesiastical machine. They were “expendable.” In fact. on
occasion it became evident. long before the tragic January-
February 1974 crisis, that there was almost a compulsion to
“get rid" of certain members of the faculty. and to do so as
expeditiously as possible.

We cite only two examples. By prearrangement the majority
decided to institute a compulsory retirement policy. which
made provision for certain exceptions. This policy affected a
number of men who had served the Lord and His church faith-
fully for many years. The motion was carried with mechanical
precision.

We pleaded with the majority that the three senior professors
whose lives and careers would be affected by this decision be
invited to the meeting and that, in fraternal face-to-face con-
versation, this abrupt action be explained to them. The answer
was an adamant NO. This strictly unbrotherly procedure con-