# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1967_S45
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

EN
4

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 45

tors, and the District Presidents. To expedite the busi-
ness in the President’s office, I secured the services of
an Administrative Assistant, Rev. Arnold A. Wessler.
I want to pay tribute publicly to the devotion with
which he has served you and me and our Lord. With
equal devotion our Lord and you and I have been
served by the synodical Vice-Presidents, Drs. Roland
P, Wiederaenders, Theodore F. Nickel, Paul W. Streu-
fert, W. Harry Krieger, and George W. Wittmer, and
by Dr. Walter F. Wolbrecht, Executive Director and
Administrative Assistant to the President. Further, I
want to acknowledge with gratitude the readiness of
our Synod’s honorary president, Dr. John W. Behnken,
whose physical condition does not permit him to be
present, to continue to render service. In addition I
want to express my gratitude to the Board of Directors
for coming to my assistance when my service to you
called for it. The Council of Presidents also has been
my strong arm in the Districts.

This report will deal with three major areas of re-
sponsibility assigned to the President’s office. They are
the supervision of the doctrine and life of the Synod,
the communication and implementation of the will of
the Synod’s members as expressed in our general ob-
jectives or in our synodical resolutions, and finally our
relations to other church bodies and agencies.

I

I feel it is essential for me to insert a preface to the
first portion of my report. The Lutheran Church — Mis-
souri Synod has always placed a high priority on purity
of doctrine and life. Our early history offers evidence
of this fact. Our Constitution bears witness to it. The
provisions of our Bylaws in many places demonstrate
that we intend earnestly to carry out our commitment
in this respect. Personally I announced my willingness
to stand on this great tradition of our Synod in my
acceptance speech in 1965. I did so by pledging myself
to serve in this office as pastor and undershepherd.
Whatever the official title may be, this is the way Holy
Scripture describes the assignment. And I am per-
suaded that this view is the underlying thrust of our
entire synodical structure.

Permit me to explain what I mean. We are a con-
fessional church. It is of paramount importance to us
that our statements of faith rest on the sure foundation
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there is salvation
in no other name under heaven, and this is the founda-
tion revealed to us in the infallible and unfailing Scrip-
tures. We are a pastoral church. The welfare of each
individual and of all people of God is of primary con-
cern to us. What we say and do is for the world and
a testimony to the grandeur of God’s grace. Yet we are
still the Church Militant. We struggle under our human
limitations to grasp and to restate what God reveals
to us. We strive against sinful passions as we seek to
translate the confessions of our lips into the professions
of our lives.

The struggle and strife of life is a true test of our
faith in the grace of God. One test of allegiance is met

by the doctrine we profess aloud and to which we affix
our signatures. But our heavenly Father did not give
us His Word simply to be a creed. By this Word,
spoken both in judgment and in forgiveness, God is at
work in human lives. The highest test of our faith
is our willingness to trust God by using His Word in
the most difficult circumstances of life.

This is what Christian discipline is all about. It is
the body of Christ at work channeling God’s power to
weak members. Christian discipline is Christian breth-
ren coming to the rescue when a brother is threatened
by forces with which he can’t cope alone. Christian
discipline is the ready risk of one Christian who steps
in because he has confidence that God has a good word
to say and a good work to do. Everything about church
discipline marks it as a distinctly churchly function.

What I have just said is neither new nor different.
This is the heritage of our church precisely because
we are evangelical in profession and practice. It is a
process in which all of us participate. The office of the
President, with the assistance of the Vice-Presidents
and District Presidents in particular, is to supervise this
process. Repeatedly my office has visited the campuses
of our colleges and seminaries, especially the terminal
schools, for this purpose. This subject has become a
major part of my presentations especially to the presi-
dents of Districts and institutions and to others who
are to assist in this supervision of doctrine and life.

In addition, I have attempted to use other avenues
to encourage everyone to be involved in this care of the
brother. This has been my constant concern whether
writing to all the brethren in “Memo to My Brethren”
or in writing and speaking to people one at a time. Files
are filled with letters encouraging disturbed, offended,
and sometimes angry members to speak the truth in
love for the welfare of the church.

It is not my intention to shift the burden of Chris-
tian discipline to the shoulders of others. Possibly more
than I should I have become involved personally in
many individual instances. There have been many pri-
vate sessions with lay and clergy members, with pro-
fessors and with individual congregations. Twice we
were able to arrange daylong meetings with the execu-
tive board of the State of the Church. These sessions
provided a special opportunity to discuss concerns and
to clarify matters. Above all, it enabled my office to
underscore the Scriptural and confessional bases on
which the doctrine and life of our Synod are built.

There are those who contend that our efforts in
supervising doctrine and life have not been very suc-
cessful. I can agree with them to an extent, although
I do not necessarily agree to the standards of success
by which some may come to this conclusion. Since our
purpose is to win the erring, to help the failing, can
we measure disciplinary success by the number who
are dismissed from their positions or excommunicated
from membership? If God’s Law and Gospel seem to
fail to achieve the results we desire, should we then
resort to other means? Are we compelled to examine
if our desired results demand what God does not de-