# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S67
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

determined that mission societies, RSOs, and even
auxiliaries are not bound by this bylaw. Second, this
bylaw expresses the rough equivalent of the relationship of the national U.S. government to the states.
For example, the states don’t make foreign policy.
Inversely, (ideally) the national government should
meddle as little as possible in the states’ business.
There is plenty of work to be done internationally. We
want congregations and districts to be part of that
work, and they are in growing numbers. But we must
do it in a relatively coordinated fashion. Note: Bylaw
3.8.3 has no effect whatsoever on short-term mission
teams sent by congregations. Of course, they may
continue! It’s only about the calling and sending of
rostered, long-term missionaries. The Office of International Mission and the Board for International
Mission are bending over backward to cooperate with
districts and congregations who desire to do this. The
main point: We can’t have districts doing their own
international mission in terms of sending their own
missionaries. We need districts working in partnership with the Board for International Mission.
Here let me give a shout-out to Secretary Ray
Hartwig for his stellar service on the Commission
on Constitutional Matters, on the Commission on
Handbook, and especially as Secretary of the Synod. His administration of the dispute process amid
myriad other duties has been absolutely stellar. I have
learned so much from this man. We cannot thank
God enough for Ray, and we wish him every blessing
as he moves toward retirement.
A L AR G E R P ROBLE M

These three issues—LLDs, ecclesiastical supervision,
and a unified international mission—all point to a
much larger problem that has bedeviled us for decades.
I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes here or question
anyone’s motives. I believe everyone here wants to
see the Gospel go forward, but I’m just trying to be
honest about how I see it. As the Synod began to
show the fissures of doctrinal disunity already in the
1940s, districts began more and more to adopt a local
character somewhat at odds with the national body,
or at least the national convention. The controversy
through the 1960s and 70s exacerbated the situation
terribly. Pastors were coming from the seminaries
with much more moderate—even liberal—views, and
increasingly a number of districts defined themselves

“President’s Report, Part 3”

over against the national body and certainly the
national convention. They began to view the issue
as a matter of autonomy and even self-preservation.
To be fair, more conservative districts acted similarly
at times, especially when they disagreed with an
administration.
I believe this gave birth to a “confederative” view of the
Synod. Thus, there developed a rather strong difference
in doctrinal latitude and practice between various
districts. Many districts are very concerned not to bring
in pastors who will go contrary to the reigning flow,
as it were. This happens not only on the left, but also
on the right. The increase of LLDs, in part, became a
way to self-determination—not only local mission, but
also district character. Sending missionaries directly
would be a way for a district to act autonomously and
to determine the nature of its own international mission. The current inadequate system of ecclesiastical
supervision is designed so that there is very limited
authority beyond the district president, and thus the
latitude of doctrine and practice may be determined
in each district. I understand why this developed. I am
even sympathetic to its development. But it’s not finally
how the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, or the Synod
Constitution understand the church’s unity. And we
can do better.
That said, I do believe we have made progress.
After visiting all districts but one with LCMS First
Vice-President Herb Mueller and the other vicepresidents, I am heartened. All of you are absolutely
unique. Yes, we have our warts and problems. But few
people have the chance to visit everyone from Portland
to Cedar Rapids, from Austin to Boston. And at the
end of the day, the folks who serve on district boards,
as circuit visitors, and so on are remarkably similar in
their basic convictions about Christ and their love for
the Church of Christ and their concern for it.
WH AT ’S T H E S O LU T IO N?

• The Koinonia Project has been significant in
several districts and circuits. It needs to continue
and expand.
• The Council of Presidents is challenged by the hard
issues. But we’ve been talking theology and practice
more than ever before via the Koinonia Project, and
progress has been made.

UPON THIS ROCK

|

67