LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 309

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

HIGHER EDUCATION 309

tinued to be typical of almost all board activity. Face-to-face
conversation with the parties concerned was frequently avoided.

When we asked why certain other professors who were age
65 or over were not retired, we were given no satisfactory reply.
Whatever criterion was used was never shared with the board
minority. Hence we cannot share it with the church.

3

Throughout the years since New Orleans the board has
been engaged in an exercise of legalism. Space forbids us to
say more than a few words on this tragic chapter in our church's
history.

To illustrate, the board was able to put off a “discussion”
of our formal minority protests of November 1973 and February
1974 until the following September. Almost a year! In our
February 1974 protest we pointed out that, as of that date. al-
though the then seminary president had already been sus-
pended, there had never been an investigation of the formal
charges against him in a session of the board. We called atten-
tion to the pertinent Bylaws which related to the board's obli-
gation in this matter.

A “discussion” of the charges was later held, but in all
honesty we must say there was no dialog. Rather, there were
two simultaneous monologues. Apparently minds had been
made up. There was little brotherly exchange. The stage had
been set. and the tragedy was inevitable.

4

On Jan. 20, 1974. students of Concordia Seminary declared
a “moratorium.” It was announced that no classes would be
attended until certain conditions had been met.

Let it be noted here that the recital of this historical fact
does not mean that the undersigned approved of it. Our purpose
is not to defend the act but to express our deep regret over the
manner in which the board handled it.

There was unwillingness to mediate on the part of the board.
It is the attitude and the action of the board during these days
of crisis from which we must. in all conscience. disassociate
ourselves.

The board immediately appointed an acting president
whose very presence in the presidential office could only make
reconciliation impossible. Discretion forbids us to elaborate.
Suffice it to say that soon after his appointment the newly
appointed acting president stated to the board: ‘You don't
negotiate a rebellion — you crush it.” That statement became the
very essence of the board majority's action during the ensuing
critical weeks. “Crush” became the watchword. There were
a few token gestures in the direction of reconciliation, but the
underlying motive was not so much to win the professors and
students back as it was to “crush” the “rebellion.”

This became evident. too. in an article in the Oct. 25. 1974.
issue of Christianity Today (p. 17), written by a high official
of our church. Describing the tragic days of February 1974. he
stated that the question “How do we get them back?” soon gave
way to the question “Do we want them back?” He went on to
say: “There was a simple way to solve the entire problem —by
bringing in the Missouri corporate law, which says if you are
not here you are no longer on the payroll.”

We mention these two quotations merely as illustrations of
how the board majority and some in the synodical administra-
tion approached the very serious problems which confronted
our beloved church and the St. Louis seminary during its days
of crisis.

We repeat, this report is not intended to defend the actions
of the students or the faculty majority. But neither can we de-
fend the actions of the board majority as a God-pleasing ap-
proach to the church's problems.

Where was the Gospel of our Lord during these harrowing
days of confrontation? Where was fraternal dialog? -Where
was the willingness to walk the extra mile? Where was the
willingness to put the arm of love around the erring brother
and to appeal, as did the apostle Paul, ‘I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God... .”. (Rom. 12:1)

a

Unfortunately, this is not the end of this tragic story. Through
the good offices of the Synod’s Board of Directors a “forum”

was arranged for Feb. 15 and 16, 1974, to which the Board for
Higher Education as well as representatives of faculties and
student bodies were invited. The intention of the 2-day forum
was to find viable approaches to reconciliation and to a settle-
ment of differences. The atmosphere of the forum was cordial,
and various approaches to reconciliation were discussed. Our
board was asked to give consideration to these approaches, as
were the other groups.

At our board meeting the following day. shortly after we
began, a member of the board majority presented a lengthy
resolution, which had been prepared beforehand by the board
majority. It was the legalistic ultimatum addressed to the faculty
majority. They were to indicate by the following noon (Monday,
Feb. 18) their intention to return to their classes on Tuesday.
Feb. 19. Each professor was to indicate his intention in writing
and to have his reply on the desk of the acting president by
12 o'clock.

If not? The lengthy resolution spelled out in detail just when
salaries would be terminated. just when personal belongings
would have to be removed from seminary offices, and just when
faculty housing would have to be vacated. Most shocking was
the language employed in the cruel document. Its tone was
that of a legal instrument. Not a single religious reference. Not
a single allusion to Scripture. to the Gospel. to the sacred calling
of the ministry. to the humane requirements of the moment, or
to the love of Christ which should possess and motivate us all.
Quick compliance was demanded! We protested as strongly as
we could against the loveless language of the ultimatum. But
again we were defeated 6 to 5.

The professors were given less than four hours to make
a decision which would affect their families, their careers, their
entire future. Some of them were given only an hour or two —the
hours before noon on Monday morning. A veteran professor
and former president of the seminary, Dr. Alfred Fuerbringer,
had the ultimatum read to him over the phone while he was
being prepared for major surgery in Lutheran Medical Center.

It was largely because of the board's strictly provocative
and oppressive approach that the ensuing calamity developed.
a debacle from which it may take another generation for our
beloved Missouri Synod to recover.

6

The closing of the seminary library to the faculty and stu-
dents of Seminex can be described only as a victory for the Old
Adam. It was an act of reprisal. Only two minority members
could be present at the meeting when this action was taken.
Both spoke vigorously against it. but to no avail.

So widespread was the negative response to this action of
the board that an “explanation” was sent to the clergy of the
Synod. But even the “explanation” could not conceal the love-
lessness which prompted this most unfortunate action. We
repeat. the minority members spoke out against it.

4

A few concluding remarks. Because of the present status
of the case we are not including a statement on the dismissal
of the former president of Concordia Seminary in this report.
To treat this subject adequately and fairly would cover many
pages. We would, however. welcome the opportunity to discuss
this very difficult. very involved. matter with the appropriate
convention committee when permissible.

Our purpose in submitting this minority report is. as pre-
viously stated, to disassociate ourselves from the many 6 to 5
and 5 to 4 decisions of the board which, in our opinion, were
often provocative, legalistic. loveless, unethical, and unbrotherly.
To have remained silent would have meant a condoning of these
actions.

May our gracious Lord forgive us all, for we all. indeed.
have sinned. And may He grant us His Holy Spirit to enlighten
us and to empower us to do His will. May He use even the mis-
takes of us all for the benefit of the church in the future.

Kurt W. Biel
William A. Buege
Paul G. Nickel
Ervin M. Roschke