# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S50
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ee

50 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

time was set aside in 1968 for the presentation and dis-
cussion of fellowship, under the leadership of synodical
Vice-Presidents and men who had generally served as
commissioners or members of the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations.

Simultaneously the President’s office arranged with
officials of The American Lutheran Church for Joint
meetings at various levels. District Presidents were
encouraged to invite their counterparts to District con-
ventions. District Presidents and seminary professors
met in separate conferences to discuss the subjects
covered by the three essays and the “Joint Statement
and Declaration” adopted by our joint commissioners.
Later the District Presidents of the three participating
synods met again to explore in detail any possible
differences in our positions on the doctrine of the
Word and with respect to diversities in practice among
us. The presidents adopted a joint statement expressing
their agreement, and they endorsed the substance of
three sets of theses which were then sent to all pastors.
In a second meeting devoted to a discussion of the
doctrine of the Word and related matters, representa-
tives of the theological faculties came to agreement in
substance. At least I must report that no one at the
meeting expressed any dissent.

At the insistence of the District Presidents, the
President’s office carefully prepared an identical re-
port form on which they might indicate what had been
done to carry out Resolution 3-23 and what our con-
gregations and pastors found as a result of their studies
and/or discussions. As I have reported earlier, these
findings generally confirmed the findings of the joint
commissioners and concurred in the conclusions ex-
pressed by the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations and also by the delegates of the 1967 con-
vention.

A few sentences of clarification are in place on this
matter. The report form was designed to conform to
the assignment made in Resolution 3-23. Everything
else was excluded. It would have been improper to
conduct an advance referendum or to inquire about
the establishment of fellowship on a different basis than
that on which we had agreed to pursue the quest for
fellowship with The American Lutheran Church. Out
of respect for the will of the Synod, the President’s
office did not seek to alter or set aside the rules of
the game. Further, my reports excluded all specula-
tion. There was no attempt to generalize. The report
revealed that slightly more than one half of the Synod’s
congregations submitted reports to their respective Dis-
trict Presidents. Of those who reported, two out of
three or three out of four in general said they found
agreement in the doctrine of the Gospel. Of those re-
porting, three out of four expressed their conviction
that such agreement should lead to the practice of
fellowship.

These findings and a statement from the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations were presented
to the District Presidents. There was no attempt to
ignore the fact that the findings also pointed to diversi-

ties among us, especially in practice. These diversities
had been noted already by our commissioners in their
“Joint Statement and Declaration.” Discussions by
the District Presidents reflected differing judgments
whether or not such diversities ought to be considered
divisive of fellowship among Lutherans. After ex-
tended conversation the majority of the Council of
Presidents concurred in the recommendation which is
presented to this convention in accordance with the
final directive of Resolution 3-23.

In summary, the recommendation asks this con-
vention to do what the church alone can do and what
the church has wisely agreed long ago to do only in
convention, that is, to declare its readiness to live in
altar and pulpit fellowship with The American Lutheran
Church. Consistent with our past practice and also
in harmony with the Synod’s constitutional relation to
its members, the recommendation respects the con-
sciences of those who believe that they personally have
insufficient doctrinal agreement to practice church fel-
lowship, at least with some members of The American
Lutheran Church. Finally, the recommendation asks
the Synod to accept the impulse of the Gospel to con-
tinue the quest for unity especially by working to
resolve whatever diversities might still exist between
or among us.

The President’s office will not seek to influence this
convention on this matter. In fact, the President’s office
rejects the charge that undue influence has been ex-
erted in support of fellowship in the past two years.
I remind you that the President’s office was directed by
Resolution 3-23 to “make arrangements for promoting
the widest possible mutual recognition of the doctrinal
consensus and its implications for church fellowship
among the entire membership of the Synod.”

When charges of unfairness were raised and when
distortions were published, it became necessary to put
forth special efforts to set and to keep the record
straight.

The decision before us is one of exercising sound
judgment. The test to which we are put at this point
is not whether we are right or wrong as much as that
we can be found faithful. God has not called us to
search where Christian brethren may be weak in order
that we might score points against opponents where
they are vulnerable. How we deal with Christians is
as much a test of our commitment to be evangelical
Lutherans as it is a test of their orthodoxy. Your
President is not fearful. Very few have resorted to
threats or have issued some sort of ultimatum. Many
have said, on the contrary, that they will honor the
decision that you make here on their behalf. They
will not permit us to be divided over anything less
than the doctrine of the Gospel. We can act in confi-
dence as we proceed on this basis. God is present
among us, and God will sustain us in our pledge to the
Gospel. When we have acted on the basis of trust in
His grace, then the decision we make will be His
decision.

By explicit direction of the Synod the President’s