# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S69
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
and disagreement concerning—who had changed their
views. The bottom line clearly is this: the charismatic
movement and the teachings of God’s Word are incompatible. There are some who may hope to “Lutheranize” charismatic theology, but finally it is not possible.
While some progress has been made, it seems that the
dialogue format has made about as much progress as it can.
RIM has been functioning as a church within the church,
and this should not be. Since the 1998 convention resolution indicated that the President should bring a recommendation to the Synod, I recommend that the Synod adopt
something similar to Overture 3-128, calling for RIM to disband. I also recommend that my successor as synodical
President devote early attention and quality time—more
time than has been available to me since the end of
March— to an extensive study of the notes from the conversations over the last triennium. I suggest that in an effort to “promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of the Synod” (Constitution XI.B.3.),
the new President should then consult with the District
Presidents, individually and/or as a group, on how to utilize the findings from this latest round of dialogues in dealing with those individual members of the Synod who are
involved in the Renewal in Missouri movement.
Committee 5: Higher Education
Among the various issues facing your floor committee, I
would like to highlight several matters. Concerning the
closing of colleges and universities, I would indicate that I
fully support this overture from the Board for Higher Education. If necessary, the Board for Higher Education should
have the authority to close a college or a university, after
receiving approval from the Council of Presidents and
Board of Directors as specified in the proposed Bylaw
amendment. In a worst-case scenario, a college or university that falls into particular financial peril, can seriously
jeopardize the financial stability of the entire Concordia
University System. To prevent the Board of Higher Education from acting until the next synodical convention—and,
at that, to require a two-thirds majority vote at the convention in order to approve a closing—is simply not realistic. This should apply to colleges and universities, not to either of our two seminaries.
Subsidy for our seminaries is a very serious concern that
needs your floor committee’s attention. We need to keep
support as high as possible. Seminaries differ from colleges
and universities in that their purpose is far more focused,
and thus their potential sources of income from grants, etc.,
do not range as widely as those of our colleges and universities. We cannot, and we must not, as a church, allow our
seminaries or our colleges and universities to drift away
from direct support. The further they move away from such
support, the less they will be truly church schools, and
more and more will become private institutions of higher
learning. There are too many illustrations of this from history. Our schools exist, first and foremost, for the preparation of future church workers for the Missouri Synod. This
reason for their existence must remain “priority one” at all
of our institutions of higher learning.

69
Committee 6: Human Care

Your committee has the opportunity to speak to issues of
life and family concerns (Ov. 6-01 to 6-07), affirming these
as gifts of God. We have been given a solemn responsibility
to do all we can to be good stewards of these gifts—a responsibility we can carry out as we make clear our support
for human life, marriage, and family. Along the same lines,
we affirm our support for our persecuted brethren.
I am recommending to your committee that you formulate a resolution encouraging and supporting the formation
of an LCMS—Sanctity of Life Ministry standing committee, to be placed under the Board for Human Care Ministries. It is time for our Synod to be much more assertively
involved in raising the whole spectrum of Sanctity of Life
issues before the eyes of our people, our church workers,
and our congregations. The President’s Commission on the
Sanctity of Life has done a wonderful job, but it could be
doing so much more with adequate staffing and funding.
The Synod in convention would do well to affirm this
new synodical ministry’s development and to encourage it
in its work on behalf of the unborn and all those whose
lives are increasingly threatened in this, our culture of
death. Our Synod needs a special ministry unit, within our
structure, located at our national headquarters, to assist us
all to keep these issues “front and center” of our activities
and thinking.
Committee 7: Structure, Planning,
and Administration
Committee 7 has some of the most significant issues to
come before our convention this summer, issues touching
upon our Synod’s understanding of itself. The key issue
seems to be this: are we, or are we not, a group of believers
who truly do walk together, sharing with one another the
same doctrine and practice? Or are we instead simply
loosely affiliated groups of Christians sharing only the most
general of common interests? Can we as a Synod embrace
precise and detailed understandings of God’s Word and expect that members of the Synod will teach and live out their
lives within the Synod in accord with these common understandings? It is evident that the issues that came to a head
during our Seminex crisis days in the 1970s continue to
haunt the Synod. There are groups and persons who wish
to remain members of the Synod, but then go their own way
when it comes to those points of our Synod’s confession with
which they personally disagree.
Our Synod’s first president, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, was
certainly no advocate of legalistic control. He said that a
Synod that wants to be truly Lutheran will strive for “peace
and unity in the truth in its midst and therefore it sees to it
that all members are mutually submissive.” He made it
clear that the Synod has every right to expect members
who have joined the Synod voluntarily (as we all have) to
abide by the common confession and understanding of
God’s Word that the Synod has embraced in Christian freedom. He warned, “In the years that lie ahead this Synod
too will have more than enough pastors who will refuse to
fall in line because they have a distorted view of Christian
freedom, thinking they are therefore brave heroes, fighting
on behalf of the pure Gospel—but it will be nothing more
200l Convention Proceedings