# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S84
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

84 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

bodies of the Lutheran Council evidently no longer
attach the same theological significance to seeking
theological consensus that was entailed in the forma-
tion of LCUSA and stated in its constitution and
bylaws. It should be added that this different under-
standing of the priority of theological consensus has
become increasingly evident within American Lu-
theranism in recent years and that the decision on
Episcopalian-Lutheran intercommunion is merely one
logical practical application of the theoretical position
on consensus expressed by other Lutheran bodies in
recent years. .

Without doubt, The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod will want to continue its efforts to engage in
studies and discussions to resolve doctrinal differences
that exist between us and other Lutherans and other
Christians, for we have explicitly assured other Luther-
an church bodies of our “continuing desire to seek
agreement in Biblical and confessional doctrine and
practice” (1981 Res. 3-06). But the council’s lack of
success in seeking theological consensus combined with
the changed priority that three member bodies evidently
attach to such consensus argues strongly that the
perpetuation of the present Lutheran Council will not
contribute significantly to the achievement of this goal.

3. Increasing unsuitability of many council pro-
grams. Many council programs have proved to be very
satisfactory for all members, including the LCMS, and
the sharing of ideas and resources through council
structures has also been quite beneficial. But doctrinal
differences, fellowship limitations, divergent political
and ethical emphases, and limited financial resources
have combined to decrease the suitability of many
council programs for the LCMS in recent years.
Examples include the news bureau, campus ministry,
mission planning, Indian affairs, and governmental
relations.

The future identification of the LCMS in all council
programs needs to be reviewed in view of the decision of
three Lutheran Council church bodies to form a new
church body and to extend Eucharistic privileges to
non-Lutherans. It can be cogently argued that these
actions of fellow council members have made it difficult,
if not impossible, for the LCMS to maintain even its
present level of involvement in council programs, let
alone expand it. For example, can we continue to
participate in interconfessional dialogues under the
aegis of DTS/LCUSA when our Lutheran dialog
partners and we have not only different theological
positions in key areas (as we have had for several years)
but diverging views on the role and significance of
theological consensus itself?

Rather than subject present LCUSA programs to
increasing scrutiny, criticism, and potential LCMS
disengagement, I believe it would be better churchman-
ship to design a new national inter-Lutheran associa-
tion to meet those programmatic needs we choose to
address jointly with other Lutherans. Furthermore, |
believe such an association should become operational
as soon as possible, certainly well before the new church

body begins its official existence on Jan. 1, 1988.

4. Desirability of broadened Lutheran membership.
Throughout its 16-year history the membership of the
present Lutheran Council has remained fairly constant,
with only the AELC and the Latvian church having
joined. Itis clear that the present council has littleif any
appeal for such church bodies as the Evangelical
Lutheran Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lu-
theran Synod. Perhaps a new national inter-Lutheran
association could be structured in such a way that all
Lutheran bodies in the United States could be related to
it in some way. In any event, the LCMS will need to
intensify its efforts to achieve a closer relationship with
other Lutheran church bodies, especially those whose
historical and confessional ties to us are very close.

5. Need for greater cost efficiency. Under the leader-
ship of its Board of Directors and encouraged by
convention actions, The Lutheran Church—Missouri -
Synod has in recent years reduced its level of participa- :
tion in a number of council programs and has introduced. aim
several cost savings throughout the council structure :
But the council continues to be a costly operation. If th
factors sketched above were not present, we might wel
conclude that the cost of the council is worthwhil
because of the benefits it provides; that has been ow
position for several years and it has had considerable :
cogency. It should also be recognized that a great deal of:
inter-Lutheran cooperative program work is not don
through the council but through a variety of other?
organizations, such as CCCPCL, and at very little co:
to the church bodies. At a time when we are havin,
difficulty funding a number of vital ministries a
programs within our own synodical structure, it:
especially difficult to justify the continuation of thé!
present costly operation of the council, particularly i
view of the factors sketched above.

It will be extremely difficult to introduce significan
additional savings into the present council structur
But a new inter-Lutheran association could withot
doubt be designed to meet our current needs in a mol
effective and cost-efficient manner. 3

Type of Association Needed

No single member involved in forming an asso
tion can determine its characteristics apart from!
needs and wishes of other members, but it would ap
that The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod w
want a new inter-Lutheran association to be prime
involved in the following functions on behalf
members. .

1. Directing and coordinating a limited numbe
joint activities and programs, such as immigration:
refugee services. “

2. Arranging meetings, as requested by mem
bodies, of church body representatives, staffs, .
specialists in given areas for the purposes of coore
tion and communication, perhaps using a format 8
lar to the present CCCPCL. Ideally, all major nat

inter-Lutheran activities should be coordinated thro