# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1986_S64
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT 63

candidates. Although some difficulties were experienced
with one board, the process has worked extremely well.

Relationship to Auxiliaries. The President’s office, as-
sisted by appropriate staff persons, maintains close liaison
with the leadership of the Synod’s two auxiliaries, the In-
ternational Lutheran Laymen’s League and the Interna-
tional Lutheran Women’s Missionary League. Such
liaison, together with the contacts maintained by others
in the various organizations, has served to improve and
deepen these relationships considerably during the past
three years. A particularly sensitive issue has been the
relationship of the auxiliaries to an autonomous partner
church in Canada, should that be the desire of the Ca-
nadian congregations and the will of the 1986 synodical
convention. After considerable discussion, a proposal has
been developed that is mutually satisfactory and will be
presented to this convention for adoption.

Church Relations. The synodical Constitution and By-
laws make the synodical President primarily responsible
for contacts and relationships with other church bodies,
many of which are described in the report of the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations. This entails con-
siderable correspondence and several meetings, including
the annual meeting of United States church leaders. Meet-
ings of the presidents of the Lutheran church bodies be-
longing to the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. are held
twice a year. Such meetings provide the Synod with an
additional opportunity to gain current information about
developments in other church bodies, as well as a splendid
opportunity to interpret The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod and its positions and policies to other Christians.

During the past triennium, there were several contacts
with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the
Evangelical Lutheran Synod, including a very fraternal
and positive meeting held in Milwaukee. Important cor-
respondence has also been exchanged with the President
of the Lutheran Church in Australia, a church body with
whom the LCMS has sought closer relationships for many
years (cf. 1983 Resolution 3-17A). The staffs of the Board
for Mission Services and the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations maintain close contact with the Presi-
dent’s office in monitoring and supporting the work of our
partner churches around the world—an area that needs
considerable attention in coming years if we are to main-
tain and strengthen the bond of faith.

The work of the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. has
continued to receive careful monitoring by the Board of
Directors, the CTCR, and the President’s office. To a large
extent, the programs of the council are in a holding pattern
pending the formation of a new Lutheran church and the
probable termination of the council’s existence on Jan. 1,
1988. Considerable difficulty has been experienced with
the Office of Governmental Affairs, largely because that
office has not accurately and consistently communicated
to its Washington contacts that it does not represent The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. After one particularly
grievous incident in 1985, the Lutheran Council itself de-
termined that the Office of Governmental Affairs should
no longer be identified as an office of the Lutheran Council,
and a new letterhead was recently developed to confirm
that fact. Meanwhile, other inter-Lutheran activities in

organizations such as Lutheran World Relief, the Lu-
theran Education Conference of North America, and other
groups continue to operate in a proper and helpful manner.

The Synod continues to send Dr. Samuel Nafzger, ex-
ecutive secretary of the CTCR, as our official observer to
meetings of the Commission for a New Lutheran Church.
Dr. Nafzger reports regularly on the process of forming
that new church body to meetings of the Council of Presi-
dents, Board of Directors, CTCR, and others.

In response to an invitation extended to the 1985 con-
vention of the Southeastern District, conversations are
being held between representatives of that district and its
counterpart judicatory in the Lutheran Church in Amer-
ica. Pastor Jerald Joersz, assistant executive secretary of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, rep-
resents my office and the CTCR in those conversations.

With the formation of a new Lutheran church, inter-
Lutheran cooperation currently carried out through the
Lutheran Council will take on an altered form. To guide
both church bodies into that period of bilateral cooperation,
the Commission on a New Lutheran Church and the Synod
have had a joint committee developing a plan. The Com-
mission for a New Lutheran Church, as well as the syn-
odical Board of Directors have both given approval to the
proposal as developed to date. In brief, the approved plan
provides that there will be no successor agency to LCUSA,
but that the two major church bodies would maintain co-
operative agencies such as Lutheran World Relief and Lu-
theran Immigration and Refugee Services. In addition,
various program areas would keep each other informed
through regular consultations and coordinating commit-
tees.

Considerable effort has been expended during the past
triennium to guide the deliberations pertaining to the pos-
sibility of autonomous-partner church status for our three
Canadian districts known as the Lutheran Church-—Can-
ada. Consultations between representatives of Lutheran
Church—Canada and the synodical administration re-
sulted in a set of guidelines, subsequently approved by the
Board of Directors, that would guide the transition from
district to partner-church status. It has long been the judg-
ment of the Synod, as expressed in previous convention
resolutions, that the determination of this question should
be made by the Canadian members of the Synod on the
basis of what is best for the Kingdom. Should the decision
of this convention be to grant partner-church status to
Lutheran Church—Canada, we will want to find ways to
make sure that our confessional bond of faith and fellow-
ship will be maintained and deepened.

A similar process has been underway with the Argen-
tine District, which voted in its February 1986 convention
to seek the approval of the 1986 Synodical Convention for
partner-church status. A protocol document has been de-
veloped through mutual consultation and reviewed by the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations, as well as
the Board for Mission Services. In my judgment, the re-
quest for partner-church status should indeed be granted
by the synodical convention, for it would apparently
strengthen the ability of our Argentine congregations to
carry out the Great Commission.

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations re-