# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1977_S69
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 69

President Preus, Parliamentarian Stickel, Timekeeper Mark Steege

certainly does not appear that at this time the Synod
would be prepared to act affirmatively on Doctor Kohn’s
request. However, it does afford us opportunities for
discussion and dialog, and these we should not reject.

In this connection the CTCR also indicates that it is
calling for a study of the entire matter of fellowship, as
noted particularly on page 44. The whole subject of
selective fellowship continues to be before us, and all of
these matters do need careful study and consideration in
view of the kind of church we are and in view of the
situation under which we are attempting to work in
carrying out the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. I
would not propose at this time that we enter into
fellowship with the LCA, but I do believe that we should
continue to hold out to them the desire to discuss
doctrine with them. We have had difficulty in achieving
this desire because of the position which the LCA has
taken on this subject. It seems to me that we would be
well advised to continue and hold out the offer.

Looking at the work of Committee 4 on Synodical
Administration, I will comment on two matters in this
section.

First, it is an increasing conviction with many of us
that our synodical conventions are too large, too
frequent, and too costly. Perhaps we can call upon the
Task Force on Constitution, Bylaws, and Structure to
make proposals relative to solving this problem.

On page 165 there are overtures pertaining to the
subject of granting auxiliary status to various agencies
and organizations. This is a subject which needs some
very careful study. Several years ago efforts were made
to try to regularize this matter, but in the past several
years very little discussion has taken place. Therefore it
would seem well also to hand this difficult subject over to
the Task Force on Constitution, Bylaws, and Structure
or a special group, in order that the matter might receive
careful study and that all parties would be heard. We do
not want to take precipitous action, but on the other
hand we should not let the matter drag out forever. At
the present time only the LLL, LWML, Walther League,
and the Lutheran Medical Mission Association have
auxiliary status, but some efforts need to be made to
determine the relation of other organizations to the
Synod, the matter of fund raising, and the relationship
between the work these organizations are doing and

that of various boards and committees of the Synod.

Under the section on Constitutional Matters I want
to refer only to a couple of points which are quite
significant.

The 21-member Task Force on Constitution, Bylaws,
and Structure that the Anaheim Convention authorized
and directed has during the 18 months since it was
organized addressed itself diligently to a study of the
organizational and structural weakness of the Synod.
Their interim report on pages 172—174 of the Workbook
demonstrates that they have properly addressed
themselves to the functions of the Synod as the basic
criteria for the recommendations they will provide in
1979 for an effective structure.

Since the Task Force assignment calls for it to report
its recommendations in late 1978, the Dallas convention
and its floor committees are presented with a bit of a
dilemma. In the course of your work you should avoid
the temptation to refer any and all organizational
changes to the Task Force for their consideration. On
the other hand you must be conscious of the desire of the
Synod in bringing the Task Force into being to have an
integrated, internally consistent and coordinated ef-
ficient organizational structure. We cannot defer
everything of an organizational character, but neither
can we ignore our striving through the Task Force fora
better structure to aid us in the attainment of our noble
goals. I ask that you exercise care and restraint in the
suggestion of structural reorganizations.

On page 175 there is the overture “To Dismiss
Congregations for Refusal to Abide by Constitution.”
This and other proposals of this kind remind us of the
fact that there are indeed some congregations which are
in violation of the Constitution in that they have called
improperly certified candidates as pastors. However,
this situation has gone on for some time, and I believe it
is a part of a larger subject and should not be dealt with
only on the basis of the Bylaws. We need, here as
elsewhere, to apply pastoral concern both to the pastors
concerned as well as to the congregations, and it would
seem that a better solution to the problem would be to
ask for District Presidents to work diligently on this
matter toward a responsible solution.

This committee also has the very difficult task of
formulating a proper resolution concerning the Associa-
tion of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. I believe that
this is one of the most difficult problems the church has
ever faced from the constitutional and pastoral stand-
point. In the first place we need to get the matter into
perspective. I have gotten the impression, from talking
to lay people from time to time, that they feel the whole
Synod is falling apart over this matter. Iam distributing
to you statistics which will give the exact figures on the
actual number of congregations which have left the
Synod, those which claim dual membership, splits that
have taken place in various congregations, and also full
statistics on the pastors who are involved. When one
looks at this in the light of some 6,200 congregations and
over 7,700 pastors, one must recognize that the problem
involves relatively few individuals and congregations.
This despite the great amount of publicity that it has
received. The facts are these: