# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S65
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

- PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS 65

the opinion of some, appears to be slanted in only one
direction.

I strongly endorse the proposal of the Task Force
relative to funding the mission of the church which in
many, many ways is buttressed by the recommenda-
tions of the Board of Directors.

With reference to the recommendations of the Board
of Directors as set forth in Overture 2-28, I believe that
their proposed change of Bylaw 2.107 e, dealing with the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, would not be
beneficial. While I fully recognize the desire of the Board
of Directors to have a certain amount of flexibility,
which I believe they already possess, I do feel that to
take away the binding nature of a CCM opinion and
‘turn it over to the appeals process or to make it only
advisory, would in the first place totally destroy the
CCM as an effective instrument in synodical admini-
stration, but would upset the delicate system of checks
and balances which has been so beneficial in so many
areas of our synodical life together. While I, together
with all members of the Board of Directors, have
- certainly been frustrated at times by decisions of the
CCM, I treasure more the checks and balances, and
would propose that this Bylaw be left as it has been in
the past.

3. Theology and Church Relations

- Committee No. 3 has the difficult assignment of
dealing with both the recommendations of the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations and many other
overtures representing many different opinions on the
gubject of the continuation of altar and pulpit fellowship
with The American Lutheran Church. For the past 12
years this matter has been a kind of a good news/bad
news situation. Some congregations have shared
worship and work in certain communities and found
great joy and happiness in so doing. In other parts of
both our church and The American Lutheran Church
almost no association has taken place. On thesynodical
level the matter of transferring pastors has worked very
smoothly and comfortably. The relations between our
church and The American Lutheran Church in the
Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. have been very fine.
On the other hand, the doctrinal differences as set
forth in the report of the committee which was created to
study this subject (page 397 ff. in your Workbook)
indicates that we have many long-standing differences
between our two churches in the area of doctrine and
practice, and that 12 years of discussion with at least

two meetings per year have not been able to resolve the.

difficulty. Because of the fact that this matter reaches
into thousands of our parishes and affects the pastoral
practice and attitudes of thousands of our ministers, as
well as the lives of thousands of our members who are
interrelated and live as neighbors with people of The
American Lutheran Church, it becomes emotional and
very difficult. .

From the doctrinal standpoint there is absolutely no
question that we are divided deeply and seriously on
many issues. If we are to maintain our traditional

position that fellowship for the congregations is estab-
lished by synodical resolution and that the practice of
fellowship is based on complete doctrinal agreement,
there is absolutely no question as to the way we will
have to go. We have admonished, pleaded, written
articles, attended countless meetings, gone into protest
as a Synod, and done all kinds of things to try to call
attention to our concerns on these matters—all to no
avail. Therefore, I, with great reluctance and unhappi-
ness, feel that there is no other direction for us to take
than that recommended by the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations. The CTCR is made up of reason-
able people who work very carefully and deliberately.

I understand fully the feelings that this creates on
the local level where many have had good experiences
and where interpersonal and interfamily relationships
play so great a role. As our CTCR says on page 153, “In
relationships with other Christians, commitment and
freedom frequently appear to be in tension, and deci-
sions are seldom simple. Members of the Synod will do
well, therefore, to exercise a high degree of mutual
understanding and forbearance toward one another, to
put the best construction on everything, and to refrain
from loveless and uninformed criticism of brethren.
Above all, we need to pray ceaselessly for the gift of the
Spirit to enable us, however imperfectly, ‘to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4:3).”
Whatever the decision of the convention, patience and
forbearance are called for. If the Synod breaks with the
ALC, I hope and pray that those who find themselves at
variance with that decision will remember that we are
still brethren and in a very particular and special way
members of the same church body. If the decision is not
to break, we need likewise to exercise the same patience
and understanding, so that our own interrelationships
are not damaged. Feelings run high. I am very sensitive
to the concerns of those at the parish level as well as the
agency level and in other areas where various forms of
cooperation have continued to exist and probably will
continue to exist. A special committee was appointed by
me at the recommendation of the CTCR to try to deal
with the implications of a break in fellowship. This
committee has held two meetings, and their findings
and recommendations are being brought to your atten-
tion.

We also have a whole series of overtures dealing in
one way or another with the subject of interchurch
relations and unionism and separatism. I have been in
the ministry for over 35 years and have been involvedin
discussions of unionism and related matters for all of
these years. I have hoped that during my years in office
some greater clarity could be developed among us as to
what really is unionism and what must be dealt with in
a disciplinary way, as over against things that might
appear to some to be a compromise of the Word of God
but to others are not such at all and no intent at
compromise is intended. I hope that the Synod will try to
develop rubrics and guidelines for a church of 3 million
members in the 1980s and 1990s, rather than always
relying on definitions which are a century old, which
deal basically with a European situation and are not