# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1986_S73
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[ —™

72 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

expects of this office. Article XI of the Constitution lays
the responsibilities before us in very clear language, and
I quote from it: “The President has the supervision re-
garding the doctrine and the administration of all officers
of the Synod, all such as are employed by the Synod, the
individual districts of the Synod, and all district presi-
dents.” It is his duty, and I am quoting again, “to see to it
that all the aforementioned act in accordance with the Syn-
od’s Constitution”; he has and always shall have “the
power to advise, admonish, and reprové,” “he shall con-
scientiously use all means at his command to promote and
maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts
of the Synod,” and he “shall see to it that the resolutions
of the Synod are carried out.” The Bylaws of the Synod, as
many of you know, subsequently spell out those awesome
responsibilities in even greater detail.

On the one hand, we should understand that the im-
portant responsibilities assigned to the President in the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod were not placed
there in just the last few years, but have been part of that
office since its inception. By the same token, one looks in
vain in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for any
authoritarian notions about this office among us. Its in-
cumbents have long realized that its responsibility and
accountability far exceed the actual authority entrusted to
it. And that’s no doubt the way it ought to be, for the
presidency is primarily a spiritual office, a ministry. It is
exercised by a pastor on behalf of and in support of God’s
people. His primary authority, like that of all pastors in
the church, is, simply stated, the authority of the Word of
God. And he exercises that by preaching, teaching, wit-
nessing, encouraging, supporting, building people up, and,
yes, sometimes admonishing when the occasion calls for
it.

In the first part of my report, I call attention to the fact
that the supervision of doctrine and administration of the
Synod also involves major responsibilities on the part of
our 38 district presidents. In fact, the Bylaws clearly assign
to them, not to the synodical President, the responsibility
of supervising the doctrine, life, and official administration
of the pastors and teachers of each district, as well as in-
quiring into the prevailing spiritual condition of each dis-
trict and congregation (Bylaw 3.73). While the synodical
President has the power to advise, admonish, and reprove,
according to the Constitution, he, unlike district presi-
dents, does not have the direct authority to remove people
from office, for example. Thank God for that! It could be
so readily abused! With that in mind, however, the Vice-
Presidents and I again during this triennium have been
very careful to follow through on every complaint, ques-
tion, or reported irregularity by conferring with the ap-
propriate district president. That’s what the Bylaws of this
church provide.

In addition, we have monitored all of the dockets, agen-
das, reports, and publications of all synodical boards, com-
missions, districts, and institutions. During the past
triennium, the First Vice-President has had the particular
and important responsibility of monitoring alleged irreg-
ularities in the doctrine and practice of congregations and
professional workers in the Synod, and of contacting and
encouraging district presidents concerning their respon-

sibilities in such matters. Iam especially pleased to report
to you, with deep gratitude to God, that the vast majority
of our pastors and congregations, according to all reports
that I receive from all over this vast church body, are faith-
ful to God’s Word in their doctrine and practice, and that
the doctrinal discipline carried out in our midst by your
elected officials is done in a way that has been and is faith-
ful, evangelical, and effective. I would also add the com-
ment that while there is discussion—there always is in the
Missouri Synod—about doctrinal discipline, it’s not simply
the responsibility of elected officials to do that. Brothers,
as the Scriptures state, “if someone is overtaken in a fault,
you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” And that
means that all of us, as God’s people marred by sin, try to
live and serve God together in ways that would seek His
will and be faithful to that will.

I want to pay special tribute at this point to the Vice-
Presidents, who have been faithful and good colleagues. I
especially want to praise God for two faithful co-workers
who served as our Vice-Presidents during this triennium
and whom God has called home to Himself in heaven: Dr.
Joseph Lavalais, Third Vice-President of the Synod, who
died on September 15, 1983, and Dr. Gerhardt W. Hyatt,
Second Vice-President and assistant to the President, who
went to eternal glory on Aug. 30, 1985. We will be remem-
bering them with praise and doxology on Sunday morning.
The worship service scheduled for that morning, at which
Dr. Oswald Hoffmann is the preacher, will focus on eternal
life in Christ as we praise God for Joe Lavalais and Will
Hyatt, and for Dr. Harold Huber, president of the Montana
District, who died on Aug. 17, 1984; former district presi-
dent Philip Fry of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan District,
who died during this triennium, and hundreds of others—
pastors and teachers and laymen who are alive in Christ
in heaven above. We’re going to join with them and with
the angels in praising God for His great deliverance.

The authority of the President we were talking about
a moment ago has not been expanded in recent years, as
some among us are suggesting. Art. XI of the Constitution
has been in effect for some time, and it will be in effect
until we change it. The President has the responsibilities
that are set forth there. It is true that some Bylaw changes
were made in 1981 prior to my installation, and those By-
laws added some responsibilities—but they also took away
certain other responsibilities. It’s almost inevitable that
conventions will change things for various reasons. Some-
times our perception is that change increases authority,
while in other cases it decreases authority.

I would like to address one of the points about which
some people seem to be concerned, namely, the Bylaws
under which our executives serve. They were revised in
1981 to require the concurrence of what the Bylaws call
the “appointing authorities” whenever the termination of
an executive is sought by a board or, perhaps, by the Presi-
dent. When collegial processes fail to achieve such con-
currence—in those very difficult and sometimes painful
situations—an impasse may exist. That has happened once
in the many times that that Bylaw came into operation
during this past triennium.

I must say that it has worked quite well. The reason
for this concurrence policy, as I understand it, is largely a

detains itm eenanet tet ya teint tnt
* POEL RMAC Oe ACOA PALL ATOR LOO LE TL CE TCA LET

i