AcademicFreedom and Tenure:

CONCORDIA SEMINARY(MISSOURI)1

I. IntroductionConcordia Seminary was founded in 1839 in PerryCounty, Missouri, by a group of Lutheran immigrantsfrom Germany. In 1849 the institution, consisting of apreparatory division and school of theology, was movedto St. Louis, and in 1861 the preparatory division wasremoved to Fort Wayne, Indiana. According to the1972-73 Catalogue, the Seminary is "owned andoperated" by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,whose 2,800,000 members throughout the UnitedStates "have planned Concordia Seminary as a finalstep in a program to train parish ministers, chaplains,and mission workers." Together with the ConcordiaTheological Seminary in Springfield, Illinois, it is thesource of ministerial training for the Missouri Synod. Inaddition, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis has beenrecognized for over a century as an important centerfor theological training and research. In the fall of1973 the faculty at the St. Louis Seminary numbered48 and student enrollment approximated 700. Fromthe fall of 1969 to the spring of 1974, ConcordiaSeminary in St. Louis was, according to its President,the largest Lutheran seminary and the third largestProtestant theological school in the world.

From the fall of 1969 until late in 1974, the Presidentof Concordia Seminary was Dr. John H. Tietjen,previously executive secretary of the Division ofPublic Relations of the Lutheran Council in theUnited States, and himself a graduate of the Seminary.

1 The text of this report was written in the first instance by themembers of the investigating committee. In accordance with Associa-tion practice, the text was sent to the Association's Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, to the teacher at whose request theinvestigation was conducted, to the administration of ConcordiaSeminary, and to other persons directly concerned in the report. Inthe light of the suggestions received, and with the editorial assistanceof the Association's staff, the report has been revised for publication.

Dr. Tietjen succeeded Dr. Alfred O. Fuerbringer,who retired from the presidency but maintained hisposition on the Seminary's faculty.

The policies and procedures governing ConcordiaSeminary are set forth as part of the Synod's Bylawsin the Handbook: The Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod. The Seminary is directly under a Board ofControl, whose members are elected by the Synod'sbiennial convention; there are also provisions, until1972 rarely exercised, for certain decisions on academicpolicies and appointments to be supervised and ap-proved by the Board for Higher Education of theSynod, whose members are likewise elected by theSynod but until 1973 were appointed by the SynodPresident.

Concordia Seminary is accredited by the Associationof Theological Schools in the United States andCanada (ATS),2 which has officially endorsed the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure. In June, 1972, the Commission on Accreditingof the ATS announced that Concordia Seminary wasbeing placed on probation for a two-year periodbecause (1) adequate authority of the Board of Controlof Concordia Seminary was not guaranteed by theecclesiastical structures of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for the Seminary to carry on itseducational function as a graduate professional schoolof theology; (2) the freedom of faculty to teach andpublish research was circumscribed in ways not definedin the terms of appointment; and (3) the attention of stu-dents, faculty, and administration was unduly divertedto matters unrelated to education for the ministry. Theconcern of the ATS was initially occasioned by chargesof false teaching against the Seminary faculty bythe President of the Synod, Dr. Jacob A. O. Preus,

1 Until June, 1974, this organization was named the AmericanAssociation of Theological Schools (AATS).

SPRING 1975 49

and by allegations of undue interference by Synodicalofficials in the internal affairs of the Seminary. A visit byan ATS evaluating committee, which preceded the ac-tion of June, 1972, was precipitated by publishedreports of the nonretention of a member of theSeminary faculty, Professor Arlis J. Ehlen.

I I . The Case of Professor Ehlen

Professor Arlis J. Ehlen received the B.A. and B.D.degrees from Concordia Seminary in 1953 and 1956; hereceived a Th.D. from the Harvard Divinity School in1970, after having studied at the University of Bonnand at Brandeis University. Professor Ehlen served asan instructor at Concordia Seminary from 1959 to 1961and then taught at the Colgate Rochester DivinitySchool (1963-1965) and at California Concordia Col-lege (1967-1968). From 1965 to 1967, he served aspastor of the First Lutheran Church, Yuba City,California. He was again, appointed to the faculty ofConcordia Seminary in 1968 as an Assistant Professorof Exegetical Theology (Old Testament).

On December 22, 1971, Professor Ehlen was in-formed by a letter from President Tietjen that theBoard of Control of the Seminary had declined torenew his appointment, and that pursuant to the Hand-book of the Synod his appointment would terminate atthe end of the 1971-72 academic year. Synod PresidentJ. A. O. Preus was present at meetings of the Boardof Control on December 13 and 20, at which Pro-fessor Ehlen's reappointment had been considered (areappointment which under the Synodical regulationswould have conferred tenure) and rejected, and hequestioned Professor Ehlen concerning his interpreta-tion and teaching of certain passages from the OldTestament.

Early in January, 1972, Professor Ehlen's faculty col-leagues wrote to the Board of Control, protesting itsdecision in light of Professor Ehlen's record as teacherand scholar and urging that the Board reconsider its ac-tion. On January 8, accounts published in the nationalpress reported that Professor Ehlen's appointment hadnot been renewed, apparently for views whichdenominational conservatives considered "false doc-trine," and noted criticism of Professor Ehlen bySynodical President Preus and several members of theBoard of Control of the Seminary for his interpreta-tion of certain passages from the Old Testament. Thenews accounts reported that Professor Ehlen had beencriticized several years previously for stating that "wefrankly do not see how a questioning of the literalhistory of the Genesis account is necessarily a sub-version of the scriptural principle."

On January 27, Professor Ehlen wrote to the Board ofControl to request a formal statement of the reasons forits action. He also asked for a hearing at the Board'snext scheduled meeting. The purpose of the hearing,according to Professor Ehlen, would be "to consider theaccuracy of the charges made and their admissibility ascause for nonrenewal of my appointment." He expres-sed his sense of urgency that the Board grant his re-

quests, since "the lack of a publicly stated reason forthe action of December 20th . . . has already permittedunfounded rumors to begin."

In February the Board of Control dealt again withProfessor Ehlen's case and, after a good deal of discus-sion, authorized his being offered an additional one-year appointment. A contract form identical to thatgoverning his first four years at the Seminary was issuedto him and signed by President Tietjen. ProfessorEhlen has stated that in justification of its actions theBoard "stated its desire that I be able to participate indiscussion of the major theological issues in a series offuture meetings with members of the faculty." On theday following the Board of Control's action, SynodicalPresident Preus issued a directive to Seminary Presi-dent Tietjen that, effective immediately, ProfessorEhlen was not to teach any courses in which he would"have opportunity to advocate his higher critical viewsconcerning Biblical interpretation." President Tietjenresponded by issuing a statement providing reasonswhy he could not implement this directive. In earlyMarch, President Preus sent a letter to the congrega-tions of the Missouri Synod explaining his position inProfessor Ehlen's case. Accompanying this letter was"A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles"which he proposed as a basis for judging the teachingof faculty members at the Seminary and at otherschools in the Synod.

Under the Bylaws of the Synod as set forth in theSynod Handbook, the Board for Higher Education ofthe Synod, whose members were then appointed by theSynodical President, has to give its prior consent to allappointments and reappointments to the faculties of theseminaries and colleges in the Synod (a function whichin the past had generally been pro forma). This Board,meeting on March 10, decided to delay its consent toProfessor Ehlen's reappointment until informed of histeaching responsibilities for the following year. At themeeting of the Seminary Board of Control in mid-April,President Tietjen announced that Professor Ehlenwould not offer a particular course on the Pentateuchwhich had occasioned the concern of some members ofthe two boards. Nonetheless, the Synod Board forHigher Education, in May, declined to approve Profes-sor Ehlen's reappointment. The Seminary Board ofControl urgently requested the Board for HigherEducation to reconsider its decision, but on June 1 theBoard for Higher Education declined the Board ofControl's invitation to a joint meeting and reaffirmed itsdecision against Professor Ehlen's reappointment.

The Seminary administration was able to persuadethe Board of Control to continue Professor Ehlen'ssalary through the 1972-73 academic year, but he wasassigned no teaching duties, excluded from participa-tion in institutional government, and stripped of hisfaculty title and status.

Professor Ehlen first brought his case to the attentionof the American Association of University Professors inJanuary, 1972, soon after he first received notice of non-reappointment. He received advice from members of

50 AAUP BULLETIN

the staff as the question of his continuance proceededthrough the various stages of reconsideration to final re-jection by the Board for Higher Education. He thenasked the Association to express its interest directly. OnJuly 28, the Associate General Secretary wrote to Presi-dent Tietjen as follows:

Our concerns rest specifically on the stated and publicizedgrounds for the action taken against Dr. Ehlen, grounds which,suffice it to say here, in their apparent insistence upon ecclesiasticalorthodoxy have profound implications for the fundamentals ofacademic freedom in research and to freedom in the classroom indiscussing his subject. We are disturbed to learn that developmentsrelating to the status of academic freedom at the Seminary have ledthe American Association of Theological Schools to place theSeminary's accreditation on probation, and we must consider ourown responsibilities towards the academic profession in this matterif it stands uncorrected.

Accordingly, while appreciating that decisions have apparentlystemmed from sources beyond the campus of the Seminary, and in-deed beyond its Board of Control, we must ask you, as President ofthe Seminary, if it is yet possible to correct what appears to be agrave infringement upon academic freedom, by rescinding thenotice of nonreappointment issued to Dr. Ehlen and continuinghim in his teaching position.

President Tietjen, replying on August 8, stated thatthe Seminary's Board of Control was continuing itsefforts to meet with the Board for Higher Education todiscuss its action in Professor Ehlen's case. On Sep-tember 25, President Tietjen was informed that theGeneral Secretary had authorized an investigation.

Several weeks later, in separate requests, both Profes-sor Ehlen and President Tietjen asked the Associationto suspend its investigation because of the possibilitythat the matter might yet be resolved through discus-sion and negotiation with the Board for Higher Educa-tion. President Tietjen wrote that "we . . . believe thatthere is still a possibility of a satisfactory solution of thisproblem within our own organizations, which we fearmight be jeopardized by [outside inquiry]." The Gen-eral Secretary consented to these requests.

Efforts on the part of the Seminary administration toeffect a reversal of the position of the Board for HigherEducation continued through the 1972-73 academicyear, but with no success.

In July, 1973, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synodheld its general convention in New Orleans. Dr. Preuswas reelected President of the Synod. At the same time,the election of new members of the Board of Control ofthe Concordia Seminary constituted what was reportedas a shift in the balance from a majority in support ofProfessor Ehlen's reappointment to a majority sup-porting President Preus's position against ProfessorEhlen's continuance. Professor Ehlen wrote to the As-sociation on July 27 that he had lost all hope for theachievement of a resolution of his case through"moderation and mediation," and he asked that thepreviously authorized investigation go forward.

III. The Dismissals of February, 1974Dr. J. A. O. Preus was first elected President of the

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 1969, the sameyear that Dr. John Tietjen assumed the presidency of

the Concordia Seminary. In well-publicized statementsfrom the outset of his presidency, Dr. Preus repeatedlyspoke out on the matter of "false doctrine" beingtaught by faculty members at the Concordia Seminary.

In September, 1972, the results of a lengthy fact-finding committee's report, presented to the member-ship of the Synod by Dr. Preus in a report of his own,purported to establish that "some professors at theSeminary hold views contrary to the established doc-trinal position of the Synod." The report charged spe-cifically that some faculty members had underminedthe authority of the Bible by using the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. It directedthat "no faculty member shall in any way, shape orform in class iectures, in private consultation withstudents, in articles written for public consumptionor at any pastoral conferences use any method ofinterpretation which casts doubt on the divine authorityof the Scriptures. . . ." The report asked for strict con-trol, beginning immediately, of all theological state-ments made by Concordia Seminary faculty members,and it called on the Seminary's Board of Control to dis-miss or discipline some faculty members. Dr. Preusasked the Board of Control to "deal personally and firstof all with President John Tietjen as to his own con-fessional stance and as to his failure to exercise thesupervision of the doctrine of the faculty as prescribedin the Synodical Handbook."

President Tietjen sent a thirty-six-page response toDr. Preus's report to all pastors of the Missouri Synod,adducing evidence in support of his claim that thePreus report was "in fact a distortion and misrepresen-tation of what faculty members believe, teach and con-fess." Shortly after the appearance of Dr. Tietjen'srebuttal, and as a result of the intervention of the Coun-cil of Presidents of the districts of the Synod, Drs. Preusand Tietjen agreed to a series of guidelines for at-tempting to settle the sharp doctrinal differences whichhad arisen. These included provisions that all facultymembers in the Synod's seminaries and colleges wouldbe protected from undocumented charges of heresy andthat all disciplinary actions against accused professorswould follow guidelines set forth in the SynodicalHandbook and be made public information in thechurch.

Nonetheless, the dispute continued unabatedthrough the winter and spring of 1973, within and out-side of the Concordia Seminary, with Dr. Preus fre-quently quoted in press accounts as critical of a ma-jority of the Seminary's faculty and administration, andas saying that "Tietjen must go." The July, 1973,general convention in New Orleans, which reelectedDr. Preus as Synodical President, also adopted a seriesof resolutions concerning the Seminary's faculty andadministration. All but five of the faculty, and includingPresident Tietjen, were charged with false teaching,and Dr. Tietjen was charged specifically with allowingand fostering false doctrine at the Seminary. An amend-ment to the resolution concerning Dr. Tietjen called foran investigation and possible disciplinary action.

SPRING 1975 51

On July 24, 1973, a "declaration of protest and con-fession" signed by fifty Concordia Seminary facultyand staff members protested against the convention'sresolutions and charged that the convention hadViolated the Synod's procedures for evangelical dis-cipline. On August 8, two members of the convention'scommittee which had formulated the resolutions sub-mitted a statement of charges against Dr. Tietjen,paralleling those in the resolutions, to the Board ofControl. These two members presented the results ofwhat they described as their own findings in in-vestigating the charges, and they called for Dr. Tiet-jen's suspension from office.

Ten days later, at a meeting of the Seminary's Boardof Control called by members opposed to Dr. Tietjen,the two individuals who had submitted the charges ap-peared before the Board to press them. The meetingresulted in Dr. Tietjen's suspension from office by theBoard, but shortly thereafter the action was withdrawntemporarily because the Synod's Commission on Con-stitutional Matters declared it to be in violation of es-tablished Synodical disciplinary procedure.

Through the fall of 1973, a series of meetingsbetween President Tietjen and his accusers failed toresult in any resolution. In a letter dated December 10and submitted to the Board of Control at its meetingon January 20 and 21, 1974, the chairman of the Boardpresented a new recommendation that Dr. Tietjen besuspended.

Reports circulating in the press at the time, and con-firmed by the Seminary administration and Dr. Preushimself, indicated that the agents of Dr. Preus offered atthe last minute to withdraw the heresy charges againstthe Seminary faculty, reinstate five senior facultymembers whose retirement had precipitately beenthreatened and then enforced by actions of the Boardof Control, and reverse a recent decision not to re-appoint a nontenured faculty member, if Dr. Tietjenwould "accept a Call" to another position. Dr. Tietjenstated that he declined the offer, essentially because hedid not feel he could ethically accept another positionwithin the Synod while his name and those of accusedfaculty members remained under the cloud of the heresycharges. This time the Board's suspension action en-countered no apparent obstacle from the Synod's Com-mission on Constitutional Matters, and on January 21,1974, the suspension was announced.

On the same date, January 21, almost 300 students ofthe Concordia Seminary, constituting a large majorityof the student body, declared a moratorium on attend-ing all classes in protest against Dr. Tietjen's suspen-sion, and on January 22, forty faculty members, con-stituting a large majority of the faculty, joined them. Ina January 22 letter to Dr. Preus, the forty facultymembers declared that in suspending President Tietjenthe Board of Control had in effect suspended them aswell. They called upon Dr. Preus either to declare hisagreement with the Board of Control and to press thecharges of heresy against them through dismissalproceedings which would afford due process, or to take

the initiative in clearing the faculty of the charges offalse doctrine. Dr. Preus responded by ordering thefaculty members to return to their classrooms, and bystating that the resolution of the New Orleans conven-tion which condemned the faculty as false teacherswould stand until withdrawn by a future convention.The faculty members responded by pointing to the con-tradiction apparent to them in Dr. Preus's position andby declining to return to their regular teaching duties atthe Seminary as long as the actions and charges againstPresident Tietjen and their faculty colleagues remainedin effect.

Early on February 18, 1974, the Board of Control in-formed the faculty members that, if they ignored aBoard directive to return to classes by February 19,their appointments were to be considered as ter-minated, effective immediately, Salary payments wereended, retroactively effective to January 18, and allfaculty members occupying housing on the Seminarygrounds were ordered to vacate these premises withinten days. On February 19, the dissident faculty andstudents decided to implement a plan to begin aseminary in exile (to become known as Seminex),drawing largely on the physical facilities of St. LouisUniversity and Eden Seminary.

On February 26, a member of the Association's staffwrote to Dr. Tietjen, recalling the General Secretary's1972 decision to authorize an investigation of the issuesraised by the case of Professor Ehlen, and expressingregret that the desired resolution of that case had notproven possible. The letter went on to state that "giventhe accounts of recent developments at the Seminaryrelating to the work stoppage and subsequent dismissalof most of the faculty members and staff, we believethat we should now in accordance with our responsibili-ties proceed with an ad hoc investigating commit-tee. . . ."

The undersigned investigating committee, after ex-amining very extensive documentation provided by theAssociation's Washington Office, met in St. Louis dur-ing April 5 and 6 with various principals to the events atthe Concordia Seminary. The committee met with Dr.Tietjen, with Professor Ehlen, with former ConcordiaSeminary faculty members currently at Seminex, withthe academic dean of Seminex, with the president ofthe student body (first at Concordia and then atSeminex), with Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann (ActingPresident of Concordia Seminary from January untilMay, 1974), with Dr. Robert Preus (newly appointed asVice President for Academic Affairs at ConcordiaSeminary), and with Concordia Seminary students.

Subsequently the committee wrote to SynodicalPresident J. A. O. Preus, to the Chairman of theSeminary's Board of Control, and to the Chairman ofthe Synod's Board for Higher Education, regarding therole of Concordia Seminary in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Responses received from the twochairmen have provided the committee with helpfulclarification.

Concordia Seminary (with Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann as

52 AAUP BULLETIN

its Acting President since May, 1974) and Seminex(constituting most of the Concordia Seminary facultyand student body as of February, 1974) continued tooperate as separate entities into the 1974-75 academicyear, with their relations marked by disputes over doc-trinal differences, access to library facilities, and the or-dination of graduates. Dr. Tietjen, suspended as Presi-dent of Concordia Seminary on January 20, declinedto appear in his own defense before a hearing com-mittee during August, 1974. The Board of Controlacted to dismiss him on October 12, 1974. On Feb-ruary 18, 1975, he was installed as President of Seminex.

IV. Issues

Concordia Seminary as a Church-Related Institutionand Professor Ehlen's Appointment

There are colleges and seminaries which, in servingthe needs of their particular constituencies, fulfill veryspecialized roles in the framework of their denomina-tion's educational objectives. Theology normally is nottaught as an academic discipline at such institutions,and therefore the provisions of the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples on Academic Freedom and Tenure will havemarginal or no applicability for them. AAUP has not ac-cepted members from the faculty at such institutionsand has not taken an official interest in specific cases atthese colleges and seminaries. It could be argued thatConcordia Seminary, with its strong ties to theLutheran Church-Missouri Synod, belongs traditionallyin this category. The Seminary, however, has in recentdecades interested itself in official recognition as an in-stitution of higher learning. It has been accredited bythe Association of Theological Schools (ATS), therecognized accreditor of graduate professional schoolsof theology and, since 1963, an endorser of the 1940Statement of Principles. Faculty members at ConcordiaSeminary have been accepted into AAUP membershipsince accreditation was achieved. The investigatingcommittee therefore considers it to be entirely ap-propriate, and consistent with the policies and objec-tives of the American Association of University Pro-fessors, to conduct an investigation and to issue areport on the case brought to the Association by Profes-sor Ehlen and on conditions of academic freedom andtenure generally at Concordia Seminary.

The authors of the 1940 Statement of Principles, ap-parently recognizing that church-related institutionsmight wish to set limitations on academic freedom, in-cluded the provision that

Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or otheraims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at thetime of the appointment.

Since that time, there has been a general shift awayfrom limitations at institutions which teach theologyas an academic discipline. The basic statement on"Academic Freedom and Tenure in the TheologicalSchool," adopted by ATS in 1960, contains the follow-ing paragraph:

Theological schools may acknowledge specific confessional

adherence as laid down in the charters and constitutions of theschools. A concept of freedom appropriate to theological schoolswill respect this confessional loyalty, both in the institutions andtheir individual members. At the same time, no confessional stan-dard obviates the requirement for responsible liberty of consciencein the Christian community and the practice of the highest ideals ofacademic freedom.

The same statement lists among the principles ofacademic freedom the following:

C. So long as the teacher remains within the accepted con-stitutional and confessional basis of his school, he should be free toteach, carry on research, and to publish, subject to his adequateperformance of his academic duties as agreed upon with the school.D. The teacher should have freedom in the classroom to discusshis subject in which he has competence and may claim to be aspecialist without harassment or limitations.

In 1970, following a review of the matter by AAUP'sCommittee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure in1969, the following was adopted as Interpretive Com-ment No. 3 of the 1940 Statement of Principles:

Most church-related institutions no longer need nor desire thedeparture from the principles of academic freedom implied in the1940 Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure.

An institution may, by its own choice, set itself apartfrom those institutions of higher learning where theprinciples of academic freedom obtain. ConcordiaSeminary, by seeking and accepting accreditation fromATS, has implicitly indicated its acceptance of theseprinciples.

In Professor Ehlen's letters of appointment, in 1968,no specific limitation on academic freedom was setforth. A "Contract and Agreement," signed by Profes-sor Ehlen on June 10, 1968, does specify that "this con-tract is made subject to all regulations of the institutionnow in force or which may legally be made during thecontract period (cf. Synodical Handbook, Chapter VI,esp. sec. 6.53c; 6.54.d)" [all references are to the 1971Handbook, unless otherwise stated]. These sections ofthe Synodical Handbook deal with the notice that theBoard of Control shall provide in the event of nonreap-pointment and with the Board's ability to grant perma-nent tenure. In another section, 6.53.d, it is statedexplicitly:

Limitations of academic freedom because of the religious natureand aims of the institution shall be stated in writing at the time ofthe appointment and shall be conveyed to the person being ap-pointed.

Faculty members in the academic departments ofConcordia Seminary normally hold two concurrentpositions. They are faculty members by virtue of their"Contract and Agreement," and they hold a position inthe Church as clergymen or teachers by virtue of accep-tance of a call. In Professor Ehlen's case, in addition tohis contract, he received a "Diploma of Vocation,"dated May 22, 1968. This dual nature of faculty posi-tions presents issues which will be discussed later in thisreport, but here it can simply be noted that at the timeof Professor Ehlen's appointment neither documentplaced any explicit limitation on his academic freedom.

SPRING 1975 53

The Decision Not To Reappoint Professor Ehlen

The Synodical Handbook, Sec. 6.53.c, states as fol-lows:

The Board of Control may decline to renew the appointment of afaculty member without tenure at its discretion and without formalstatement of cause. If reappointment to the teaching staff is notcontemplated, the Board of Control shall so notify the facultymember through the president of the institution, at least 6 monthsprior to the expiration of the current appointment.

On December 22, 1971, within the prescribed timeperiod under the Handbook although late by sixmonths under the Association's standards for notice,Professor Ehlen received a letter from President Tietjeninforming him of the decision of the Board of Controlnot to renew his appointment. In addition to the in-adequacy of notice, less procedural protection wasavailable to Professor Ehlen under the provisions of theHandbook, and thus under the institutional regulationsfor Concordia Seminary, than the Association calls forin its Statement on Procedural Standards in the Re-newal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments. Specifi-cally, the Handbook contained no provision for appealsof a decision against reappointment; there was noprovision for periodic review of probationary faculty sothat progress towards tenure could be discussed; andthe role of the faculty in reaching decisions on tenurewas notably undefined. The granting of tenure by theBoard of Control followed the recommendation of thePresident of the Seminary (Sec. 6.54.a), or the comple-tion of seven years "of creditable service . . . as amember of the faculty" (Sec. 6.54.c), in both caseswith the prior consent of the Synod's Board for HigherEducation and the Seminary's electors.

According to President Tietjen, faculty participationin decisions on tenure had been increasing. Whilerecommendations for tenure had earlier gone from thePresident to the Board of Control with minimal facultyreview, more recently, under President Tietjen, the roleof the department chairman in the process had in-creased, and advice from departmental colleagues cameto the President through the chairman. In the case ofProfessor Ehlen, the initiative in recommending hisreappointment came from President Tietjen, but theother members of his department were involved, andthey supported the recommendation unanimously.Traditionally, recommendations did not go to theBoard for Higher Education before being forwarded tothe Board of Control. In October, 1971, President Tiet-jen informed the Board of Control that he would bemaking affirmative recommendations regarding thereappointment of seven faculty members, includingProfessor Ehlen, and in November, 1971, these sevenrecommendations were forwarded to the Board.

Bt this time, Dr. J. A. O. Preus had issued hisreport with its allegations against several members ofthe Concordia Seminary faculty over doctrinal andconfessional matters. When the Board of Control re-ceived the seven recommendations, it decided to allowBoard members to submit written questions to those

faculty members being recommended, with responsesrequested in writing by the next regular Board meetingon December 13. At that meeting, which Dr. J. A. O.Preus attended, members of the Board consideredresponses to questions they had addressed to five of theseven faculty members being considered. On the basisof the written responses, and of oral responses fromProfessor Ehlen and two others who were present at themeeting, all recommendations for retention were ap-proved, except for the recommendation concerningProfessor Ehlen.

A special meeting of the Board of Control was calledfor December 20, 1971, to continue consideration ofProfessor Ehlen's case. President Tietjen asked Profes-sor Ehlen's department chairman to prepare a writtenevaluation of Professor Ehlen for that meeting, and healso presented results of a student evaluation. Dr. Preusattended that meeting too, and he questioned ProfessorEhlen. Some of the questioning was based on notesfrom a student in Professor Ehlen's classroom, un-identified as to source. The vote on reappointment wasfour in favor and five against, with one abstention.The Board took no action on President Tietjen's re-quest for a statement of reasons that he might com-municate to Professor Ehlen or to a similar subsequentrequest from Professor Ehlen himself, and this too wasa deficiency in terms of AAUP's procedural standards.

The procedures followed in dealing with the sevencandidacies for retention in the fall of 1971 were a ma-jor departure from prior practice in the degree ofdoctrinal scrutiny given to the candidacies and in thedegree of participation by the Synodical President.

The evaluation of Professor Ehlen's academic perfor-mance was made as it should have been, by ProfessorEhlen's academic peers, and his departmental col-leagues and his chairman all evaluated him favorably.In his letter of recommendation to the Board ofControl, President Tietjen added his own assessment ofProfessor Ehlen as an "excellent scholar and teacher."The concerns of the Board of Control in dealing withProfessor Ehlen, however, focused not on his academicwork but primarily on his doctrinal stance. The unusualpresence of the President of the Synod (who is nothimself a member of the Board), as well as his advicegiven to the Board in this matter, seem to have beenmotivated by the same concern. In his letter to con-gregations and pastors dated March 3, 1972, PresidentPreus stated:

Under the Constitution of the Synod, your synodical President hasthe responsibility to see to it that the teaching at our schools is inkeeping with the Word of God as we have been taught it, under-stand it, and have applied it heretofore. It was out of this regardthat I originally proposed that the board not reappoint Dr. Ehlen

The investigating committee is aware that the doctrinalsupervision of pastors and seminary professors is takenvery seriously by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synodand involves constitutionally quite a number ofauthorities outside the Seminary and its Board ofControl. This fact alone would be no reason for alarm.

54 AAUP BULLETIN

But the committee feels that the primarily nonaca-demic concerns evidenced in the type of detaileddoctrinal questioning the Board of Control permitted,and particularly the intrusion of the President of theSynod in like fashion, point to a deep problem that isinherent in the dual nature of faculty positions at Con-cordia Seminary. Those who may feel competent tojudge confessional orthodoxy are at the same time ex-ercising a judgment on academic acceptibility. The netresult is the grave intrusion, into an area which shouldbe the preserve of academic peers, of nonacademic fac-tors and criteria that are potentially violative ofacademic freedom.3

When the decision against Professor Ehlen's reten-tion was announced, strong statements attesting to hisscholarship were issued by the majority of the faculty ofConcordia Seminary and by the members of his depart-ment. Professor Ehlen himself submitted a memoran-dum that set forth his views on two subjects which hadbeen the subject of earlier questioning.

The Board of Control, at its meeting in February,1972, modified its position by offering an appointmentto Professor Ehlen for one additional academic year.The terms of this offer were not specified. Althoughretention for an additional year could be considered tolead to tenure (Handbook, Sec. 6.54.c), the offer of theappointment did not speak to this point. It was alsounclear in other respects. Was it to be conditional onnot reopening the case for tenure, or was it to provideadditional time during which the decision on tenuremight be reviewed? Could a future favorable decisionon tenure arise from a re-evaluation of Professor Ehlen'sconfessional stance and, if so, by whom? Would orcould any change in Professor Ehlen's doctrinal posi-tion provide a potential basis for re-evaluation?

It might be held that the offer of the additional yearof appointment by the Board of Control in February,1972, constituted a legitimate faculty appointment,that this extra year would in fact lead to tenure, andthat the subsequent action of the Board for HigherEducation to withhold approval constituted abrupttermination (in fact, denial of tenure) in the absence ofeven the appearance of due process. It is a measureof the complexity of this case that these questions canarise, but from any practical point of view it wouldseem fruitless to pursue them. In Professor Ehlen's case,the orderly evaluation of faculty by faculty based onacademic factors was so constantly violated by bodiesand persons not in a position to exercise this academicjudgment that keeping score becomes futile.

8 The "Report of the Catholic University Board of InquiryRegarding Expressions of Theological Dissent by Faculty Memberson Encyclical Humanae Vitae" (AAUP Bulletin, 55 [Summer, 1969],pp. 264-266) speaks to this issue as follows:

. . . the presumptive judgment regarding the teacher's fitness forhis position must be the province of his academic peers, made un-der conditions which assure due process. . . . A determination ofdoctrinal orthodoxy may, under AATS norms, be made by a publicecclesiastical tribunal. When such a determination is made, it isstill for the academic community to render judgment concerningcompetency to teach.

Two intrusions, however, were such heavy and directattacks on Professor Ehlen's academic freedom thatthey require recording.

After the February meeting of the Board of Control,Dr. Preus wrote to President Tietjen directing him to"see to it that Doctor Ehlen teaches no course in whichhe will have the opportunity to advocate his highercritical views concerning Biblical interpretation, effec-tive at the beginning of the Spring quarter of the 1971-72 school year." The execution of this directive wouldhave been in flagrant violation of academic freedom un-der any standards. No reasons were given; no avenue ofappeal was indicated. But the background of Dr.Preus's directive was apparently again a doctrinal con-cern. In his letter of March 3 which is quoted above,Dr. Preus also said:

Had I been a member of the board, I am frank to say, I would nothave voted for the renewal of Dr. Ehlen's contract because of thefact that he was unable to state that he believed in the historicalfacticity of certain of the miraculous elements surrounding the Ex-odus of the people of Israel from the Egyptian captivity. This posi-tion has serious implications for the teaching in our congregationsbecause it means that our future ministers are being taught theoriesconcerning the origin of portions of God's Word which createdoubt as to whether the events recorded in the Scriptures actuallyhappened.

President Tietjen declined to communicate the orderto Professor Ehlen without the direction of the Board ofControl to which alone he (President Tietjen) wasdirectly responsible, and he thus averted the openthreat to Professor Ehlen's academic freedom in theclassroom. The correspondence between him and theSynod President on this matter continued, but nospecial meeting of the Board of Control emerged andProfessor Ehlen was not in fact restricted in his teachingassignment or course content during the spring quarter.

The second intrusion resulted in the terms underwhich the offer of an additional year of appointmentwas finally implemented. Professor Ehlen was paid forthe 1972-73 academic year in fulfillment of the offer.However, he was not permitted to teach or engage inany other academic functions. Quite apart from the factthat this outcome was due to the action of another out-side authority, the Board for Higher Education, the ac-tion was an abridgment of Professor Ehlen's right toteach. A previous investigating committee's report,"Academic Freedom and Tenure: St. John's Univer-sity," stated in a similar situation:

The administration's view that it had discharged its obligation withthe payment of salary . . . excluded from consideration a principlecrucial to the profession. The profession's entire case for academicfreedom and its attendant standards is predicated upon the basicright to employ one's professional skills in practice, a right, in thecase of the teaching profession, which is exercised not in privatepractice but through institutions. To deny a faculty member thisopportunity without adequate cause, regardless of monetary com-pensation, is to deny him his basic professional rights. [AAUP Bul-letin, 52 (Spring, 1966), page 18]

Professor Ehlen's Doctrinal Position

Central to the decision not to renew ProfessorEhlen's appointment and all the related turmoil at Con-

SPRING 1975 55

cordia Seminary that culminated with the suspension ofPresident Tietjen in early 1974 and led to the formationof the Seminary in Exile (Seminex) is a controversy overthe methods of Biblical interpretation, especially themethods of historical-critical scholarship. Article II ofthe Constitution of the Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod, on which the dispute has sometimes focused,states the acceptance without reservation of the "Scrip-tures of the Old Testament and the New Testament asthe written Word of God and the only rule and norm offaith and practice," and of "all the Symbolical Books ofthe Evangelical Lutheran Church . . . as a true and un-adulterated statement and exposition of the Word ofGod." Professor Ehlen and the majority of his facultycolleagues at Concordia Seminary, including PresidentTietjen, have maintained that their use of the methodsof critical scholarship in Biblical interpretation in noway affects their strict adherence to these norms. Onthe other hand, it is precisely the adherence to ArticleII which, in the light of a different understanding of theArticle, has been questioned in the case of ProfessorEhlen and his colleagues.

In March, 1972, formal charges of false teachingwere brought against Professor Ehlen as a member ofthe Missouri District of the Church by the ReverendHerman Otten. In a letter addressed to the ReverendDr. Herman Scherer, President of the District, Rev.Otten asked for action on these charges in terms oftwo sections of the Constitution of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

Art. XII, 7 The District Presidents shall, moreover, especially ex-ercise supervision over the doctrine, life and ad-ministration of office of the pastors and teachers oftheir district and acquaint themselves with thereligious conditions of the congregations of theirDistrict. . . .

Art, VII, 8 District Presidents are empowered to suspend frommembership pastors, professors, and teachers for per-sistently adhering to false doctrine. . . .

While these powers assigned to the District Presi-dents would appear to be entirely proper and consistentwith the primary religious purposes of the LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod and its constituent bodies andofficers, they raise serious questions as to the role offaculty members at institutions of higher learning in theSynod and their independence from outside, non-academic pressures. The Synodical Constitution(above) specifically empowers a District President toremove a professor for reasons unrelated to his scholarlyor teaching ability. This report will return to that pointlater, in its more general discussion of academicfreedom at Concordia Seminary.

In Professor Ehlen's case, the review of the charges atthe District level proceeded slowly. Dr. Scherer wroteto Rev. Otten on February 1, 1974, that

. . . the Praesidium of the Missouri District has studied both a) yourcharges; and b) the response of Dr. Ehlen and informs you that DrEhlen's doctrinal position appears to be within the realms ofBiblical Orthodoxy and the Lutheran Confessions. . . .. . . your charges against Arlis Ehlen are herewith dismissed and nofurther action will be taken by me.

It is entirely beyond the province of the Associationand the mandate of this investigating committee tooffer substantive comment on the content of thesecharges and the decision that was reached. The in-vestigating committee should, however, draw attentionto the fact that an adverse decision on the basis of thesecharges could have resulted in Professor Ehlen'sremoval from the faculty even if the Board of Controlhad voted to retain him and grant him tenure. Theprecariousness of faculty positions under these circum-stances is manifest. It should be noted further that thePraesidium of the Missouri District and the Board ofControl reached opposite conclusions on the doctrinalstance of Professor Ehlen essentially on the basis ofthe same evidence. One may infer either that theremust be room for reasonable people to differ in theirconclusions, or that the theological divisions in theSynod are exceedingly deep and that the compositionof different bodies is reflected in their differing judg-ments. In either case, the academic freedom of thefaculty can be severely affected, since the reasons fordenial of tenure or removal from tenure could con-ceivably be the accidents of other tensions and pressuresin the Church, and may have little to do with theacademic functions of the faculty. In the judgment ofthe investigating committee, the need for the in-stitutionalization of a dominant faculty role in deci-sions on appointments and tenure at Concordia Seminaryhas been strongly demonstrated by the case of Profes-sor Arlis Ehlen.

Academic Freedom at Concordia Seminary

The case of Professor Ehlen must be viewed against abackground of the general state of academic freedom atConcordia Seminary, for only a more extended viewwill allow judgment on whether the Ehlen caserepresented an aberration in an otherwise generallyhealthy climate, whether similar cases are likely to oc-cur in the future, and whether the Synod and Seminaryhave made significant changes in their policies andprocedures. We start with the latter point.

The 1973 Synodical Handbook reflects several impor-tant changes as regards the seminaries of the LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod. These were adopted at the1973 New Orleans convention at the initiative of aspecial task force on accreditation, and most of thechanges were in response to the criticism expressed in1972 by the Association of Theological Schools. Arevised section 6.53.a-c ascribes to the Board of Controla more clearly defined independence from other bodiesin its authority to make faculty appointments. Sections6.53.b and 6.54.b set six years as a maximum prior toreaching a decision on tenure. The Board for HigherEducation is to provide "policy statments on academic,professional, theological, ministerial, and other criteriafor the appointment and advancement of facultymembers" (Sec. 6.53.g). The procedure for grantingtenure (Sec. 6.54.a) now provides the faculty memberwith opportunity to "respond to any negative com-ments." The new sections 6.78 and 6.79 describe

56 AAUP BULLETIN

detailed procedures for removal of faculty membersfrom their positions, including a hearing before afaculty hearing committee (see the new section 6.59.f).The new section 6.81 allows for some procedures for ap-peal in cases of intended termination of services.

Both the 1971 Handbook (Sec. 6.53.d) and the 1973Handbook (Sec. 6.53.f) carry the statement on limita-tions of academic freedom quoted earlier in this report.A resolution, referred to the Board of Directors of theSynod at the New Orleans convention for action, dealtwith this issue in order to satisfy accreditation require-ments of the ATS. It affirmed the right of the LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod to establish such limitations"in the light of its Articles of Incorporation and itsConstitution," and directed the Board for HigherEducation to formulate a "Statement on Limitationsof Academic Freedom" which was to be inserted in allappointment documents. On March 12, 1974, such adocument was circulated to all college and seminarypresidents. The Concordia Seminary Board of Controladopted it on April 21, 1974. Because of its im-portance, it is reprinted here in its entirety:

SUBJECT: Policy Statement on Limitation of Academic Freedom

In accordance with Handbook 6.53.f, the Board for Higher Educa-tion adopted the policy that henceforth a written statement onlimitation of academic freedom shall be written in all contracts offaculty members and the Board for Higher Education will providethe limitation statement.

The limitation statement shall be:Faculty members are pledged to the Scriptures as the inspiredand inerrant Word of God and to the Lutheran Confessions.They are expected to honor, to uphold, and to teach in accor-dance with the synodically adopted doctrinal statements whichexpress the convictions of fathers and brethren with whom allmembers of the Synod are united in their obedience to the Scrip-tures and the Confessions.

Faculty members are encouraged to study the synodicallyadopted doctrinal statements as well as the Scriptures and theConfessions. Should they judge the synodically adopteddoctrinal statements to be out of harmony with the Scripturesand the Confessions, they are to test their findings and opinionswith their peer group, namely, the faculty and the Board ofControl of the institution of which they are a part, and then topresent them to the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-tions before bringing them to the Synod itself. Meanwhile theyare to refrain in brotherly love from disseminating such dissidentfindings as doctrinal opinions in the classroom and/or among thestudents, as well as in other situations and places as will causeconfusion and offense in the church.Examples of pertinent synodical statements are in Handbooksections 1.09.e, and 4.21; Resolution 3-17 of the 1962 conven-tion; Resolution 2-08 of 1965; Resolution 2-04 of 1967; Resolu-tion 2-27 of 1969; Resolution 2-21 of 1971; Resolution 2-12 of1973; and Resolution 3-01 of 1973.

ImplementationIn the implementation the Board of Control shall include this state-ment in:

a) All new contractsb) All renewal contractsc) Reappointments and reinstatementsd) Promotions in ranke) Advancements to tenure

All other faculty members are urged to voluntarily include thelimitation statement in their existing contracts.

The limitation statement is to be regarded as in compliance withthe long standing requirement of previous Handbook regulationson academic freedom, and all faculty members shall be so advised.

This investigating committee wishes to reiterate thatthe Association does not challenge the right of church-related institutions to establish limitations to academicfreedom. The Association, however, has noted withsatisfaction that in the scholarly community of church-related institutions such limitations have come to seemless and less necessary, if not outright undesirable. TheReport of a Special Committee on Academic Freedomin Church-Related Institutions (AAUP Bulletin, 53[Spring, 1969], pp. 369-71), commended to the atten-tion of the academic community "the emergingtendency of church-related colleges and universities towaive, or drastically restrict, the use of the limitationsclause," and stated in its recommendations that "Thefaculty member should respect the stated aims of an in-stitution to which he accepts appointment, butacademic freedom protects his right to express, clarify,and interpret positions—including those identified ashis own—which are divergent from those of the institu-tion and of the church which supports it." CommitteeA, in a statement approved in October, 1969, concludedthat "most church-related institutions no longer needor desire the departure from the principle of academicfreedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and it does notendorse such a departure." This conclusion was incor-porated into the 1970 Interpretive Comments on the1940 Statement of Principles.

The new statement of limitation applicable at Con-cordia Seminary, quoted in full above, is in the judg-ment of the investigating committee a regressive stepwhich represents a major deviation from the standardsof academic freedom appropriate for scholarly insitu-tions of higher learning. The final judgment as topropriety of material for the classroom is to be made byauthorities outside the faculty, and there is to be priorrestraint. The overall effect cannot be anything else butthe elimination of independent and critical views, andeven the examination of ideas (not for advocacy, butsimply for elucidation) may be suppressed. Facultymembers will feel free to express and discuss ideas onlyat the peril of their appointments or prospects forpromotion. If a limitations clause at a church-relatedinstitution leads to elimination of the basic expressionsof academic freedom, the institution has lost its credi-bility as a member of the academic community.

The "Statement on Limitation of AcademicFreedom" indicates that, despite the changes in the1973 Handbook, the very basic threat to academicfreedom at Concordia Seminary persists. Moreover, theHandbook revisions still permit the nonrenewal of aprobationary appointment by the Board of Control "atits discretion and without statement of cause" (6.53.c).Policy statements on academic and other criteria for theappointment and advancement of faculty (6.53.g) areto be provided by the Board for Higher Education, ap-parently without any formal participation of thefaculty. The newly created faculty hearings committee

SPRING 1975 57

(6.59.f) seems to be restricted to a token function in theinvestigation of charges against a faculty member(6.79.e-i). No appeals procedure is available against thedecision not to reappoint initiated by the Board ofControl (6.81).

More serious still, the Constitution of the LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod is unchanged as regards Arti-cle XII, 7 and 8, which formed the basis for attemptingto remove Professor Ehlen from his position throughthe ecclesiastical route, regardless of academic con-siderations and academic due process. Indeed, the 1973Handbook revisions increase the role of ecclesiasticalauthority. Section 6.77.b speaks to removal from thefaculty "either by ecclesiastical authority or by theBoard of Control." The new sections 6.78 and 6.80 dis-tinguish between Board supervision and ecclesiasticalsupervision, but new "Procedures for Board Super-vision" in section 6.79 expressly allow a charge of falsedoctrine to be pressed, against the Board's decision,with the District President, or beyond him withthe Synodical president (6.79.c), in order to achieveremoval. The result is assured by the provision, in sec-tion 6.79.m, that "if a faculty member has lost hismembership in the Synod through the ecclesiasticalroute . . . he shall automatically forfeit his membershipon the faculty. . . ." If it is disconcerting to find that inboth cases the "supervision" of faculty members seemsto be interpreted largely as power to remove, it is yetmore disturbing to observe how protection is given tothe concerns of a denunciant while the concerns ofacademic freedom for the faculty are nowhere men-tioned. The investigating committee sees these provi-sions as a constant threat to the academic freedom ofthe entire faculty of Concordia Seminary.

There remains the broad question of whether the rolewhich the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod currentlysees for Concordia Seminary in the life of the Church,defined and circumscribed by the various regulationswhich have been discussed, is compatible or recon-cilable with academic freedom. Based on its reading ofthe Synodical Handbook, on the resolutions adopted atrecent conventions of the Synod, and on the commit-tee's correspondence with officials holding authorityover the Seminary and particularly the currentChairman of its Board of Control, the investigatingcommittee finds that Concordia Seminary is seen asprimarily serving the Church and only secondarily as aninstitution of higher learning where scholarly studiesmay be pursued no matter where these studies maylead. The role of Concordia Seminary is described asfollows in its 1973-74 Catalogue:

I. To equip men with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills re-quisite for entrance upon the parish ministry in the LutheranChurch-Missouri Synod. . . .

II. To provide instruction and experiences preparing for specialcompetence demanded by particular aspects of the ministry. . . .

III. To offer qualified clergymen, teachers, and lay people trainingin theology which will enlarge their ability to serve, to give

opportunity for advanced theological study, and to fosterresearch. . . .

IV. To provide guidance and, where necessary, staff for the con-tinuing education of the clergy. . . .

These functions can, of course, be interpreted inmore than one way. President Tietjen seems to the in-vestigating committee to have been continuing a trendin which the faculty of Concordia Seminary was en-couraged in, or at least not discouraged from, pursuingbroader studies of the type normally associated withgraduate schools in major universities. The reversal ofthis trend—as demonstrated by the events surroundingthe nonretention of Professor Ehlen, the suspension andsubsequent dismissal of President Tietjen, and theschism leading to the establishment of Seminex—is areflection of the present dominance of a very differentview in the Church. This view has found its visible ex-pression in the election of Dr. J. A. O. Preus asSynodical President, in the resolutions adopted by the1973 New Orleans convention concerning the majorityof the Seminary faculty and President Tietjen, and inthe changes in the composition and concurrently theoutlook of the Board of Control and the Board forHigher Education. Here again, the investigating com-mittee wishes to stress that it does not seek to pass judg-ment on any of these matters in themselves, but solelyto take note of them in order to have a better under-standing of events that have in fact impinged upon thefaculty of Concordia Seminary.

During its inquiries, the investigating committeereceived the impression that many leaders in theLutheran Church-Missouri Synod look upon academicfreedom to be the freedom to structure and supervisetheir educational institutions so as to defend theirconfessional identity against unwelcome intrusions.The committee understands this view but does notbelieve that it can justify setting aside what the widerworld of higher education regards as basic to aca-demic integrity: the right to freedom in teaching andscholarship and the protections of due process. Aninstitution without these rights and protections mayfulfill a limited purpose, but it inevitably separates itselffrom the larger community of higher learning*

4 Dr. John H. Tietjen, as President of Concordia Seminaryduring the events discussed in this report, commented on the textprior to its publication as follows:

In general, I am grateful for the thoroughness of the reportand for its careful and perceptive analysis. In my opinion, theevidence presented by the committee substantiates the conclu-sion of the report. It is a mark of the tragedy which has befallenConcordia Seminary that its present faculty and administration,as well as many in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, willnot be disturbed in the least by the conclusion of the AAUP ad hoccommittee. The academic community is entitled to know aboutthe demise of academic integrity at a school that once had a signi-ficant contribution to make to the academic-ecclesiastical world.The academic institutions of the church may have something tolearn from the experience at Concordia Seminary with the destruc-tion of the creative tension between confessional commitmentand academic freedom.

Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann, as the current Acting President of Con-

58 AAUP BULLETIN

V. Conclusions1. At the time of the actions taken against Professor

Arlis J. Ehlen, the stated policies and proceduresgoverning the faculty of Concordia Seminary wereseriously deficient in terms of providing academic dueprocess and protecting academic freedom. The recom-mendations from Professor Ehlen's academic col-leagues, favoring his retention, were disregarded. Hereceived inadequate notice of the termination of his ser-vices. His request for a statement of the reasons for theaction against him was not honored. Ecclesiasticalauthorities external to the academic structure of theSeminary participated actively, in departure fromprevious practice, in evaluating Professor Ehlen's can-didacy for retention, and these authorities eventuallydetermined that he not be retained.

Subsequent revisions in the stated policies andprocedures reflect some improvements in procedure,but the revised regulations are still deficient whenmeasured against the standards set forth by theAmerican Association of University Professors. Par-ticularly troublesome are a new statement placinglimitations on academic freedom and reinforced provi-sions allowing external ecclesiastical authorities tocontrol academic decisions at Concordia Seminary.

2. The decision to terminate Professor Ehlen's ser-vices was manifestly based on displeasure with hisviews on matters that fell within his academic com-petence and therefore on considerations violative of hisacademic freedom, which was not subject to specificlimitation under the terms of his initial appointment tothe faculty of Concordia Seminary. The action of the

cordia Seminary and Acting Executive Officer of the SeminaryBoard of Control, commented on the prepublication text as follows:

First, you should know that Concordia Seminary does notrecognize the legitimacy of your involvement in this matter, nordoes it acknowledge your competence to understand and evaluatethe nature and limitations of academic freedom in a confessionalchurch, particularly The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Second, your draft report contains numerous errors of fact, mis-leading or biased language, inaccurate judgments and interpreta-tions, and significant omissions of important data. Since I con-sider the AAUP to be morally and professionally responsiblefor any reports it proposes to issue, including this one, it is myjudgment that you should not expect me to correct the in-adequacies of your work.

Comments essentially similar to those of Dr. Bohlmann werereceived from Synodical President J. A. O. Preus.

Board for Higher Education of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, in making the final decision not to re-tain Professor Ehlen on the Seminary faculty contraryto the reconsidered position of the Seminary's Board ofControl in 1972, thus was in violation of the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure. The Board for Higher Education and the re-constituted Board of Control, as exemplified by theiradoption of the Statement on Limitation of AcademicFreedom in 1974, have acted regressively under thestandards of the 1940 Statement of Principles andsubsequent interpretive comments.

3. Academic freedom, as enunciated in the 1940Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom andTenure, does not now exist at Concordia Seminary. Itwill not be securely established until the independenceof faculty members in their academic pursuits is assuredby the regulations of the Seminary and the Synod anduntil the ecclesiastical authorities provide the Seminaryand its faculty with requisite autonomy.

Michael W. Friedlander (Physics), WashingtonUniversity, Chairman

Karlfried Froehlich (Theology), Princeton TheologicalSeminary

Walter H. Wagner (Philosophy and Religion), UpsalaCollege

Investigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure hasby vote authorized publication of this report in theAAUP Bulletin.

Ralph S. Brown, Jr. (Law), Yale University,Chairman

Members: Clark Byse (Law), Harvard University;Bertram H. Davis (English), Florida State University;Joseph Duffey (Urban Studies), Washington Office,ex officio; Sanford H. Kadish (Law), University ofCalifornia; William J. Kilgore (Philosophy), Baylor Uni-versity; Jordan E. Kurland (History and Russian),Washington Office; Hans A. Linde (Law), Universityof Oregon; Walter P. Metzger (History), ColumbiaUniversity; Winton U. Solberg (History), Universityof Illinois; Peter O. Steiner (Economics), Universityof Michigan; Carol Simpson Stern (Interpretation),Northwestern University; Judith J. Thomson (Philosophy),Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William W.Van Alstyne (Law), Duke University, ex officio.

SPRING 1975 59