REPORT OF THE SYNODICAL PRESIDENT to The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod In compliance with Resolution 2-28 of the 49th Regular Convention of the Synod, held at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 1, 1972 July 9 -16, 1971 GONC(}f(U11'. Upon receipt of PROGRESS REPORT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF CONCORDIA SEMINARY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Relative to its action taken on the basis of the report of the Fact Finding Committee appointed by the Synodical President IiIIIi.L, CONTENTS 1. Preface 2 2. Historical Introduction 4 3. Summary of the Findings 21 4. Table of Divergent Positions Held by Various Members of the Faculty 26 5. The Findings by Topics 32 a. The Holy Scriptures 32 b. The Inerrancy of the Scriptures 41 c. The Authority of the Scriptures 45 d. The Gospel 52 e. The Historical-Critical Method 57 1) A General Statement 57 2) The Historical Value of the Biblical Accounts 65 3) The Determination of Intent of the Biblical Authors 71 4) The Interpretation of Miracles 72 5) The Authenticity of the Words of Jesus 75 6) The Interpretation of Messianic Prophecy 77 7) The Doctrine of Angels 83 8) The Question of Authorship of Biblical Books 85 f. Permissiveness 87 1) Miracles 87 2) Christology 88 3) Creation and Fall of Man 90 4) Virgin Birth of Christ 96 5) Physical Resul'l'ection of Christ 105 6) Lord's Suppel' 112 7) Seminary Curriculum 115 g. The Ordination of Women to the Pastoral Ministry 118 h. The Third Use of the Law 120 i. Commitment to the Lutheran Confessions 123 j. The Seminal'Y's Responsibility Toward the Synod's Doctrinal Stance 128 It. Conversations with Seminary Students 130 6. The Report of the Board of Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri a. The Report of the Board of Control b. The Minority Report of the Board of Control c. Letter by Individual Member of the Board of Control 7. Statement by the Synodical President a. To Sum Up b. Further Action 8. Epilog Appendices Ia. Declaration of Members of the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missolll'i, November 3, 1970. lb. An Explanation to Our Brethren, Five Faculty Members of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, November 4, 1970. n. The Gospel, Our Confession, and Doctrinal Statements, Novembel' 24, 1970. III. A Lettel' to the Members of The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod, March 3, 1972. IV. A Statement of ScriptUl'al and Confessional Principles, March 3, 1972. V. An Opinion of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations on the Interpretation of A Review of the Question, "W'tat Is a Doctrine?", May 24, 1971. VIa, Portion of Address of May 17, 1972, by Synodical President at Faculty Meetin\t. VIb. Response of Faculty to May 17, 1972, Meetmg. VIc. Response of Dr. Tietjen to May 17, 1972, Meeting, Letter of June 12, 1972. 133 133 138 142 145 145 146 148 150 150 150 150 151 152 156 157 159 160 1. PREFACE To the Members of The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod: Congregations, Pastol's, Teachers: The following report is herewith submitted to The Lutheran ChuI'ch -Missouri Synod in compliance with Resolution 2-28 of the 1971 convention of the Synod, held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Those who attended the Milwaukee convention will recall that many delegates called for immediate release of the report of the committee appointed by the synodical President to determine facts concel'ning doctrine and life at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. They will also recall that the Synod resolved to grant the Board of Control a year to review the report of the Fact Finding Committee and take whatever action might be appropriate. Resolution 2-28 of the Milwaukee convention called for a report by the Board of Control of the seminary to the synodical President and the Board for Higher Education at the end of one year. The synodical President in turn was instructed to report to the Synod. The seminary Board of ContI'ol submitted its report to the synodical President on June 22, 1972. It included a review of the boat'd's activities for the yeal', complete copies of transcripts of the interviews with the professors (corrected by the professors themselves to take into account clerical errors), and responses by the professors to sum-2 maries of their interviews prepared by the Fact Finding Committee. The following report to the Synod by the synodical President undertakes to present a complete picture to the Synod. It is lengthy because a study of the theology of·a seminal'y is no small task. The report contains evaluations by the synodical Pt'esident. This is implicit in Resolution 2-28 and in his constitutional responsibilities for the supervision of the doctrine of the Synod (Al'ticle XI). In fairuess the summaries of the interviews of the individual faculty positions prepared by the Fact Finding C o m ~ mittee are not included in the synodical President's report to the Synod. Some of the professors took exception to some of the statements in the summaries. Hence they are omitted, as are the responses of the individual professOl's to the summaries. Instead long sections al'e quoted from the actual interviews themselves and hom essays 01' aI'ticles. In each case it is believed sufficient matel'ial is presented in this report to aSSUl'e the preservation of adequate context. In l'eading samples of the transcl'ipts under individual headings, please keep ill mind that these are from tape recOl'dings of the interviews, Hence the language of questions ----oii'oI and answers alike cannot be expected to conform to the customal'y smoothness usually found in a written essay. This is to be expected, Note also that each professor was given the option of changing or adding to his testimony if he so desired. Also, the tJ'anscripts quoted are from copies corrected by the professors themselves, Despite great cal'e, it is inevitable that el'rors will creep in. However, every effort has been made to minimize this. COl'l'ections, if validated, will be freely made. Attention has also been given to preserving the anonymity of the professors. Where articles are quoted, a different code designation is used ("XX" in every case), so that one cannot identify the author of a public article with an intel'viewee in a transcript. Perhaps this precaution was not necessary, for we are dealing with positions openly espoused in the public classrooms of the seminary, However, it was felt best not to point to particular individuals at this time. Where there are doctrinal aberrations, the individuals will be dealt with as individuals with all the rights involved in due process and under procedures outlined in the Bylaws of the Synod. Outsiders may find this type of activity in The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod unusual and perhaps difficult to understand. Such a response is to be expected in a secular age when even Christians often do not take the Holy Scriptures sel'iously. But the Missouri Synod is a Lutheran body that is grateful that God has preserved it as a Biblical and confessional church. It takes matters of doctrine and life seriously. This is in the best tradition of the Christian church throughout the centuries. We pl'ay to God that it may always be so with us! The reader will find abundant references to the Lutheran Confessions in some of the sections of this report. It is our conviction that the teachings of the seminary on controverted points al'e best judged in the light of how the Lutheran confessors understood the Scl'iptures. For all agree on this, that we must determine what it means to be truly Lutheran. Please remember also that although this report deals in great part with doctrinal problems, we have many fine professors on our seminary faculty, and we have great agreement among all that the task of the pl'eacher is to proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ and His suffering and death for our salvation, We must thank God for the Gospel witness that has been made on the campus of Concordia Seminary. Many fine things can be said about the seminary throughout its long history. But as this report will make abundantly clear, we do have problems at the seminary which have increasingly threatened the unity of our Synod. We have enjoyed a great degree of agreement among us which has aided us as we have carried on our mission. It is the hope of restoring this unity both of faith and of objective that prompted the synodical President to embark on the fact-finding procedme. The objective is the healing of the Synod, not its further division 01' fragmentation. We have been divided too long. We, have fragmented constantly. It is the prayer of your President that in getting down to an open and forthright discussion of the problems which trouble us, we will under the guidance of the Holy Spirit be able to reach consensus on the basis of God's Word and our Lutheran Confessions. We will then emerge from this ordeal a stronger, more united, and more committed church. As one aid to the achievement of this goal, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations has been asked by the Milwaul.ee convention and also by the President of the Synod to embark on a program of study of the issues which trouble us. This program, which will extend over the winter months, will embrace the congregations, circuits, and Districts of 0\l1' church. Study guidelines are being prepared. They will set forth the issues and will attempt to provide opportunities for all sides to be heard. This Pl'Ocedure should be helpful as the Synod prepares itself for important clecisions at the New Orleans convention. Above all, we hope by this process as well as by this l'eport to move ft'om discussions of procedures and personalities into discussion of the issues. With reference to this report, as you read, take heed as to how you hear and how you read. This l'eport· is not issued in order to stir up controversy or to make life unpleasant for individuals. It is intended as part of a process of healing and l'econciliation on the basis of the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. We are a family -a family of Lutheran Chl'istians, a family which has long enjoyed fellowship in our common loyalty and our confessions of our Lord Jesus Christ. We need to remember that membel's of families sometimes disagree. But we disagree in love, and we seek in every possible way to restore peace within our family. While the issues are many and complex, the St. Louis Seminary faculty and the synodical Pl'esident at a meeting on May 17, 1972, agreed that the basic issue is the relationship between the Scriptures and the Gospel. To put the matter in other words, the question is whether the Scriptures are the norm for our faith and life or whether the Gospel alone is that norm. Please keep this in mind as you read this material, because it will shed light on many things that are said. This report is herewith submitted to our beloved Synod in sincere Christian love and with the prayel' that it may help to l'estOl'e peace and concord. The only solution to our differences, under God's blessing and with His power, is to be truly faithful to His Word and the Lutheran Confessions. In this way alone will we both preserve the Gospel in its fullness and purity as well as unite in proclaiming it to the world. We all long for the time when our full enerJ!ies will he devoted to the positive work of the great mission our Savior has given us. God's Word is our great heritage And shall be ours fOl'ever; To spread its light from age to age Shall be our chief endeavor. Through life it guides our way, In death it is our stay. Lord, grant, while wOl'lds endure, We keep its teachings pure Throughout all generations. Amen. In the name of Jesus, J. A. O. Preus, President The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod 3 """ 2. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION The November 1, 1970, issue of the Lutheran Witness Reporter carried the announcement that the synodical President had determined to appoint a committee of five men to inquire into doctrine and life at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. In taking this step the President of the Synod set forth ·five objectives for the committee of inquiry. They read as follows: Since we are bl'ethren of our Lord, members of the body of Christ, we live under the words of Jesus to Peter: "Strengthen thy bl'ethren." Therefore, the purpose of this committee, created under constitutional powers granted the president in his supel'vision of doctl'ine and life, has as its objective: 1. To strengthen our synodical bond by consulting with the brethren who have been called by the Synod to prepare men for the Gospel ministry; 2. To protect the seminary against unfounded criticism and charges in the area of doctrine and life; 3. To ascertain facts underlying the criticism; 4. To make certain that our seminary stndents are taught the Word of God in its truth and purity, that they are firm in their confessional subscription, and that OUl' Synod, reassured of these facts, may continue to move fOl'ward in its pl'oclamation of the Gospel; 5. To share with the president of the Synod the findings of this fact-finding committee. He in turn will make his report and possible recommendations to the board of control. A report will also be made to the Synod. This report was received in various ways by various groups. In a world where many no longer tal.e seriously either the Holy Scriptures or the teachings of the Christian Church, it was greeted with cries of derision and with references to "heresy trial" and "witch hunting." Within The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod itself there were many who felt the action of appointing a fact finding committee constituted an over-stepping of the powers of the Synodical President and that, indeed, such an inquiry was unnecessary. On the other hand, there were many who felt that such action was long overdue and constituted a proper functioning of the synodical President under the constitutional provision which calls upon hon to supervise the doctrine of the Synod (Article XI B, 1, 2, 3).* Viewed in proper historical perspective, however,the appointment of the Fact Finding Committee will be seen to be a necessary step in a long process in which The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod has been wrestling with doctrinal and theological problems and in particular in these later years with the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures itself, It is the purpose of this historical introduction to trace the developments which led the synodical President to the appointment of the Fact Finding Committee. It will also delineate the activities of the committee itself as well as the subsequent action of the Synod at the Milwaukee convention and the report of the Board of Control to the synodical President in the summer of 1972. Concern fOl' Pure Doctrine A study of the history of 1'he Lutheran ChDl'ch -Missouri Synod will reveal that the Synod has always heen concerned about its doctrine. Indeed, the Constitution of the Synod, in the third article, lists as the first object of the Synod: "The conservation and promotion of the unity of the true faith (Eph.4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united defense against schism and sectarianism (Rom.16:17)." In seeldng to remain faithful to this object the Synod has reflected the spirit of the Lutheran confessors who in the Formula of Concord declared: * XI B. Duties of the President 1. The President has the supervision regarding the doch'ine and the administration of-a. All officers of the Synod; b. All such as are employed by the Synod; c. The individual Districts of the Synod; d, All District Presidents, 2, It is the President's duty to see to it that all the aforemeutioned act in accordance with the Synod's Constitution, to admonish all who in any way depart from it, and, If such admonition Is not beeded, to report such cases to the Synod, 3, The President has and always shall have the p o w e ~ to advise, admonish, and reprove, He shall conscientiously use all means at his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of the Synod. 4 --oii From our exposition friends and foes may clearly understand that we have no intention (since we have no authority to do so) to yield anything of the eternal and unchangeable truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquillity, and outward harmony. Nor would such peace, and harmony last, because it would be contrary to the truth and actually intended for its suppression. Still less by far are we minded to whitewash 01' cover up any falsification of true doctrine or any publicly condemned enol'S, We have a sincere delight in and a deep love for true harmony and are cordially inclined and determined on our part to do everything in our power to further the same. We desire such harmony as will not violate God's honor, that will not detract anything from the truth of the Holy Gospel, that will not give place to the smallest errol' but will lead the pOOl' sinner to true and sincere repentance, raise him up through faith, strengthen him in his new obedience, and thus lustify and save him forever through the sole merit of Christ, and so forth. (FOl'1nula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article XI, "Election," pp.95-6. Tappert Edition) Conventions 1950-69 Conventions of the Synod for the last two decades were constantly requested to apply the Word of God to doctrinal questions which were troubling the church. There can be no doubt concerning the intention of our people to remain faithful to the Scriptures and the historic creeds of our church. During these years the Synod was called upon to answer questions as to what was truly Scriptural doctrine with reference to creation, revelation and inspiration, the historical reliability and truthfulness of the Scriptures versus the concept of the Bible being marred by human limitations and by the embellishment of traditional stories, the immol'tality of the soul, the physical resurrection of the body, It was called upon to answer questions about the authorship of the Pentateuch, of Daniel, of Isaiah; the authenticity of the New Testament books; the manner and extent of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in Jesus Christ; the historicity of the Jonah account; the proper use of the historical-critical method; the new hermeneutic and its applicability to the Scriptures; the binding nature of the witness of Jesus to the Old Testament; the historicity of Adam and Eve, of the fall, of the flood, etc. It is important to note that it never was the purpose of the Synod to create doctrine. It strove only to faithfully recognize the teachings of the Scriptures. Cleveland Convention The study of convention proceedings from 1950 to 1969 demonstrates several important points. First, the Synod felt perfectly free in convention to declare itself and to enunciate its doctrinal stance on the basis of the Scriptures and the Con· fessions. For example, the Cleveland convention in 1962 was concerned with the doctrine of Scripture and resolved: That we l'eaffirm our belief in the plenary, verbal inspiration of SClipture, the inerrancy of Scripture, and that Scripture is in all its words and parts the very Word of God, as taught in the Scripture itself (2 Tim. 3 : 1 6 ~ 2 Peter 1:19-21) and in the Lutheran Confessions; That we reaffirm the Scripturally implicit hermeneutical principles that the Bible does not contradict itself and that the clear passages of Scripture must interpret the less clear; That we confess unequivocally that all true theological statements and propositions must be in accord with the above stated Biblical principles. (Proceedings, 1962, p. 104, Resolution 3-16) Detroit Convention During the 1965 convention in Detroit the Synod reaffirmed its belief "that the Old Testament prophecies of the Savior find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Savior of sinners." (Proceedings, 1965, p. 100, Resolution 2·26) The same convention also reaffirmed the historicity of the Jonah account. The resolution reads: That the Synod affirm its conviction that the events recorded in the Book of Jonah did occur as shown by-a) historical data in the book itself; b) our Lord's reference to Jonah and Nineveh in the New Testament (Matt. 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32); That the Synod urge the reader and interpreter of the Book of Jonah to treat the literary and miraculous details of the book in such manner that the specific prophetic message of Jonah for the church in our time is emphasized. (Pl'oceedings, 1965, p, 100, Resolution 2-27) 5 ~ The same convention resolved: That The Lutheran Church -Missouri Svnod reaffirms its belief that Adam and Eve were historical persons who fell in-to sin and were l'edeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it abide by its official pronouncement regarding these matters as expressed ill the Formula of Concord, Epitome, Art, I; Formula of Concord, Thorough Declal'ation, Ad; I; Brief Statemeltt, paragraphs 5, 6, 7. (Proceedings, 1965, p. 101, Resolution 2-29) With reference to the authorshill of the Pentateuch and Isaiah, the Detroit convention resolved: Resolved, That the Synod answer these questions by appealing to what the Scriptures themselves say, as for example: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me, But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My wOl'ds?" (John 5:46, 47; cf, Luke 24:27), "And He stood