# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S97
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

RESOLUTIONS 97

Patience

The following examples indicate that ELIM is far
more than a confessional movement whose prime pur-
pose is to convince the members of the Synod that certain
convention resolutions ought to be rescinded:

1. At a meeting held in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 18-19,
1974, the agenda for which was entitled “ELIM, Evan-
gelical Lutherans in Mission, Florida-Georgia District,
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” three signifi-
cant resolutions were passed:

Resolved, That we adopt as part of the ELIM mission
program the launching of an independent mission society;

Resolved, That we adopt the “Concordia Seminary-in-
Exile” proposal as a part of our ELIM program for continued
theological education;

Resolved, that we adopt the entire budget proposal for
ELIM.

2. The independent mission society, “Partners in Mis-
sion,” was organized May 10-11, 1974. “It will operate
initially as a division of ELIM” (ELIM News, May 14,
1974).

3. On June 3, 1974, the Board of Directors of the
Synod addressed a letter to the members of The Lu-
theran Church—Missouri Synod concerning several mat-
ters especially relating to ELIM. A 4-page “Position
Statement of the Board of Directors on ELIM and Bal-
ance, Inc.” was issued with the letter.

Section III of the Position Paper states the following:

Wuenreas, ELIM has begun an ingathering of funds, the
purposes of which are to operate a Seminary-in-Exile, to
fund an independent mission society, to issue publications
such as Missouri in Perspective, and to fund an organiza-
tional structure to support these purposes; and

Wuereas, These objects define in part a visible church
here on earth and ELIM therefore becomes substantially a
church within the church; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Board of Directors, by this resolution,

advise the Synod that the Board views the activities of
ELIM as being divisive within the church (cf. Article III,
synodical Constitution), and has the potential for division of
the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the Board encourage all within the Synod
who are involved in the activities of ELIM to refrain from
any disturbance of the church or any improper attempt to
take upon themselves the objects of the Synod.

In answer to the Board of Directors’ warning and
plea, the June 1974 ELIM Newsletter Together in Mis-
sion stated: “ELIM leaders have continued to assure the
Synod that ELIM does not seek the division of the Synod.
Our objectives are positive and helpful . . .”

Yet, at the ELIM assembly in August 1974 the gen-
eral manager of ELIM stated in a published address:
“Specifically, I am suggesting that we: ... b) Ordain
graduates of Concordia Seminary-in-Exile without look-
ing to see what the reaction will be. Let them do what
they will.”

4. A part of carrying out the ELIM program for place-
ment of Seminex graduates was revealed when the Oct.
16, 1974, Saginaw (Mich.) News carried an article an-
nouncing that “A Saginaw attorney has been elected to a
position in the Michigan branch of Evangelical Luther-
ans in Mission. He has been elected placement director in
Michigan for Seminex students.” In a letter dated April
28, 1975, and addressed to the Michigan District Presi-
dent and certain circuit counselors, said “placement offi-
cer” encouraged that “consideration be given to calling a
candidate from Concordia Seminary-in-Exile to serve as
assistant pastor” in District congregations. A carbon copy
of this letter was sent to the Placement Office, Seminex.

(It should be noted that the placement of graduates in
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Snyod congregations is
the sole responsibility of the Council of Presidents: By-
laws 4.09 and 4.17. There are no less than nine refer-
ences in the Bylaws which name the Council of Presi-
dents as the Board of Assignments.)

5. On Oct. 17, 1974, in a mailing entitled “Urgent
Notice” to all pastors and congregational chairmen of the
Synod, the ELIM “Director for Development” wrote:

You and your congregation can be a part of a growing
movement of people who say, “We will not support any
institution which makes a mockery of justice, bypasses due
processes, and tolerates inhuman and Godless acts....The
situation in our Synod is now of such nature that we must
question whether it is deserving of our continued support.”
This statement was made in reference to the dismissal of the
Rev. Dr. John Tietjen from the presidency of Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis. ~

An accompanying letter dated Oct. 18, 1974, issued
an appeal for financial support by way of giving ELIM a
place in the congregation’s budget and/or by individual
donations. This letter states in part: “We are further
dedicated to serving you and thousands of other people
and congregations in continuing a soundly Lutheran
theological training program, production of educational
materials, domestic and overseas mission projects, and
dozens of other activities so vital to the furtherance of
the Gospel.”

A recent appeal from the same source for financial
support of ELIM was carried out in a mailing to pastors,
delegates, and various members of congregations on
April 25, 1975.