# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1977_S67
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 67

brought about our strong confessional stance, coupled
with the overwhelming desire to carry out the Great
Commission. This unique blend has naturally resulted
in tensions and even major controversies during the 130
years of our existence as a church body. But we have
always resisted extreme swings of the pendulum that
has enabled us to work together. In recent years we have
spenta great deal of time combating an attempt to swing
our doctrinal stance away from our historic position.
That issue, for the most part, is now past. Our present
concern should be directed to preventing a swing too far
in the other direction, which could easily happen as an
overreaction to recent events but might be just as
damaging to our mission and the overall work of
Christ’s church.

Therefore I would hope that the resolutions presented
by Committee 3 will be positive and helpful and edifying
rather than productive of more conflict and more
controversy. I want to commend the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations for the vast amount of
work they have done and commend to the people of the
Synod for their careful study the material which they
have produced.

Perhaps the most important resolution passed at our
1975 convention was the one entitled “To Seek Unity,”
which called for the development of theological study
materials. From this directive the theme “That We May
Grow,” based on 1 Peter 2:2, was selected. This resulted
and is resulting in the preparation of eight Bible studies
and four studies based upon the Lutheran Confessions,
including the Formula of Concord, the Large Catechism,
the Augsburg Confession, and selected doctrines.
Beginning in September, this material will be made
available during the next two years.

This effort has already involved many of the Synod’s
boards and commissions, which itself was an exercise in
concord. There will be something for everyone. In
addition to the congregation study materials, there will
be a convocation for professional theologians, pastor
and teacher conferences, special worship services, anda
wide variety of events and activities in connection with
this, the 400th-anniversary year of the Formula of
Concord.

I heartily endorse the recommendation of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations “that
the Synod in convention urgently request the con-
gregations, pastors, and teachers of the Synod to
support the studies and programs in ‘That We May
Grow’ in the strongest possible way with their prayers
and participation.” I would hope that the committee
regards this matter as a priority item.

Another important issue which needs a great deal of
study by the committee has to do with decisions relative
to the proposed Lutheran Book of Worship. The
delegates will recall the production of this hymnbook
was originally proposed by The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod at it convention in 1965. Work has
moved forward for the past twelve years. The question
facing us now is: Are we ready at this time to accept the
proposed hymnbook?

More and more it appears that others who are
involved in the production of the hymnal, including a

significant number of individuals in The American
Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America,
had some second thoughts concerning its content and
the advisability of publishing the materials which have
been presented. For example, while the Lutheran
Church in America, in its 1976 convention, adopted in
principle the Lutheran Book of Worship, its executive
council will not be acting on the materials until its
September meeting. I understand that if the Council
cannot act on the worship materials at that time the
matter will go to the 1978 LCA convention.

In commenting on the present Service Book and
Hymnal used by the ALC and LCA, and the proposed
Liturgical Texts of the new Lutheran Book of Worship,
Doctor William Rusch of the Division of Theological
Studies of the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and a
member of the LCA, in a rather comprehensive study of
the worship materials makes these statements:

The differences between the Service Book and Hymnal and

Liturgical Texts are simply not that great, especially if a

number of “may” rubrics is employed. In fact, if “may”

rubrics are utilized at crucial points, virtually every area
which some have viewed as a betrayal of the Lutheran
position of justification by grace can be avoided. However, it
is precisely at this point of elasticity that the greatest
weakness of Liturgical Texts can appear. While some
rubrics and texts can be used to get a rite close to Service

Book and Hymnal, other rubrics can yield a rite that reveals

a number of disparities from the tradition of the common

service and Service Book and Hymnal. Do all the options

allowed in the Liturgical Texts develop from a consistent
theology, or are some of the alternatives in the material
theologically incompatible? These are not easy questions to

be answered, but they must be answered before the new
book:is published.

Iam sure that a great many of our people are desirous
of a new Book of Worship. But [have the feeling that the
great majority of our people want the assurance that the
worship material, both in the liturgical areas and in the
hymns, is doctrinally sound. Therefore Ihave cautioned
that perhaps the best course would be one of some delay.
I am not advocating withdrawing from the project, nor
am I in any way criticizing the work of our Commission
on Worship, but on a matter as important as this I think
we ought to be very certain that everything is doctrinal-
ly sound and that the greatest possible number of
concerns have been dealt with. Our Commission on
Worship and our doctrinal reviewers are continuing to
monitor this matter, and there will be an update at the
time of the convention.

Therefore, if this uncertainty exists even outside our
church, would we of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod not be well advised also to delay acceptance until
the final form has received widespread distribution and
careful study?

Another knotty problem that faces us is the matter of
continued fellowship with The American Lutheran
Church. I will not rehearse the history of all of this, since
it is in the Workbook for your study, but it does seem to
me that, as our Commission on Fellowship with The
American Lutheran Church and our Commission on
Theology and Church Relations wrestled with the
options facing us, the recommendation of the CTCR is
probably the best positive proposal that can be adopted.
Some favor the continuation of ALC fellowship. Some