# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S85
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

+5 national association, something not yet achieved
,yough the Lutheran Council.

3, Developing and arranging a significant number
so-called “‘free theological conferences’ among
merican Lutherans to study and discuss the doctrinal
fforences that divide us from each other.

nmany of the above areas, a new association might
all function primarily as a “broker” on behalf of
ber churches, rather than as their program arm.
ers would be free to participate in whatever
ctions of the association they choose as they now do
hi CCCPCL. Since the association would not have
witions or programs of its own, membership would not
aply that any one member shared the position of other
émbers. Church bodies more comfortable with
jbserver” status or advisory membership would be
come to participate in any way they felt comfortable.
yme costs could be prorated on the basis of church
y-size, while others might be assigned on a purchase-
“services basis. The net effect would be an association
relatively small staff and space requirements, and
tha correspondingly low budget.

Timetable

sItshould not be particularly difficult to have such an
sociation operational in a relatively short time, and
erefore well in advance of the Jan. 1, 1988, date when
ie new church body is scheduled to begin its existence.
fince the present program and staff of the Lutheran
Rouncil would be vitally affected by this action, care
hould be taken to work with a time frame that respects
uncil needs. A target date might well be suggested by
he LCUSA bylaws, as recently amended, which require
g-year notice, tied in with the fiscal year, of any
ancellation of council programs. On that basis, July 1,
985, would appear to be the earliest date that could be
Mhsidered for discontinuing major programs of the
esent Lutheran Council. The constitution of the
heran Council provides that participating bodies
y terminate their membership in the council “upon
fion by. the church body concerned” and that such
ination “shall become effective three months after
tten notice thereof.’”” However, since convention
tions would no doubt be required by member churches
discontinue the present council and begin the new
ociation, it would seem unlikely that a new associa-
nm could be operational before 1985. This matter would
‘more careful study.
w ‘Our own synodical convention cycle (1983, 1986)
iild strongly suggest that enabling action be taken in
He 1983 convention. That, in turn, would entail con-
iderable preparatory work, including the following:
?° Step 1: Conversations with leaders of other Lutheran
Hurch bodies;
“Step 2: Analysis and identification of potential
eti ities to be carried out through a new association.
tep 3: Discussions with appropriate officers and
of the Lutheran Council and other applicable inter-
utheran organizations.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 85

Step 4: Development of a final proposal for submis-
sion to appropriate authorities.

With the concurrence of appropriate LCMS leaders,
Step 1 should be initiated immediately by having the
LCMS president invite other Lutheran church body
presidents to discuss the proposal, ascertain its accepta-
bility, and determine the process to be used in a joint
study to be conducted under the leadership of the
presidents of the participating church bodies (rather
than by LCUSA).

Step 2 would be initiated immediately after the
meeting of the participating presidents in order to
determine the possible organizations that might be
combined into a new association and the potential
programs and activities that could be conducted by that
association. This would be undertaken by a representa-
tive committee, appointed by the synodical President,
consisting of representatives of the CTCR, Board of
Directors, Council of Presidents, and Council of Admin-
istrators; if possible, one or more existing committees
could be used. Step 3 can be initiated at the November
meeting of the Lutheran Council and followed by
meetings with other appropriate inter-Lutheran
agencies. In Step 4 the representative committee would
develop a final proposal to be reviewed by the CTCR and
Board of Directors in early 1983; suitable recommenda-
tions could then be made to the May 1983 meeting of the
Lutheran Council and to the July 1983 convention of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, as appropriate.

Consideration of Alternatives

There would appear to be only three alternatives to
this proposal. One is the continuation of the present
Lutheran Council, perhaps modified slightly to accom-
modate changes necessitated by the formation of a new
church body. This would perpetuate the problems and
shortcomings sketched above, place the uniting
churches in a stronger position to determine the future
shape and direction of the council, and no doubt delay
changes that should be introduced soon.

Another option would be to withdraw from council
membership at the earliest possible date. A third option
would be to scale down our participation in the council
by withdrawing, gradually or simultaneously, from a
number of council programs. Both of these options
would necessitate our identifying and providing ways
within our own structure to accomplish those tasks
currently carried out through our participation in the
council.

Of the four options—continuation, withdrawal,
reduced participation, or a new association—I believe
the formation of a new association has the most to
commend it at this time. It would serve as a symbol and
an instrument for our ongoing quest for Lutheran unity,
it would enable us to cooperate with other Lutherans in
meeting human needs in an effective and efficient
manner, and it would give us a means to guide, assist,
monitor, and coordinate inter-Lutheran activities
throughout the Synod. Without a national agency for
such purposes, we would face a random, ad hoc,