# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S21
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

et

MISSIONS 21

The Mission Visitation Report, largely negative in tone and
without sufficient feedback from the churches and missions
visited, was used to give some credence to the Area Secretary's
nonrenewal of service.

A minority of the board, the entire staff, and a majority of
the “500” staff protested the action of the board and asked for
reconsideration of its action. The President of the Wabag
Lutheran Church of New Guinea together with his interpreter
and representative missionaries of the India Evangelical Lu-
theran Church flew to the United States to protest the summary
action of the board. They raised the question of the justice of
the board’s action, not to say the absence of Christian concern.
It should also be noted that the action of the board was in viola-
tion of the 1967 mutually adopted board-staff-field relationship
policy.

The brethren from overseas paid tribute to the Area Secre-
tary’s work among them. They pleaded that the secretary's
nonrenewal be given prompt reconsideration. The board
promised just that, though not necessarily renewal of the
secretary's appointment. The promise was broken.

Staff members, individually and collectively, and others
made repeated attempts to have the board see that its attitudes
and actions were inimical to mission here and overseas. When
the door seemed closed to their pleas, members of the staff
began to resign in protest, including the Executive Secretary,
11 people in all. When the word “staff” is replaced by the names
of the people themselves, the loss to the board, the Synod, the
sister churches and missions, occasioned by these resignations
in protest, becomes evident.

The five staff people who remained were unanimous and
equally vigorous in joining their fellows in protest against
board actions and attitudes. On at least two occasions after the
resignations the acting Executive Secretary asked for the resig-
nation of the board chairman.

The breadth of the experience of the people who resigned is
vast. Eliminate them. Ask the five remaining staff members to
bear the load formerly carried by 17, and it is not difficult to
see how the board brought about its own ineffectiveness. Add
to this the repeated insertion of the board chairman into staff
responsibilities, i.e, Hong Kong, contrary to board-staff-field
relationship policy, and the Synod has not far to look for the
reason for the resultant confusion, disappointment, and anger
of the sister churches and missions overseas as well as the
church here at home. Confidence has been undermined.

In mission we have to remember that we are one family of
God. We believe that unless the Board for Missions assumes and
demonstrates faithfulness, it simply cannot operate effectively
together with so large a number of people and agencies in 38
synodical Districts and in 29 countries beyond the borders of the
United States, all in extremely diverse cultural settings.

The task of discipling the nations is quite a different task
today from what it used to be. Major changes in the world that
directly affect the logistics and methodology for mission (though
not its purpose and message) force God’s people at that place
where they are to find new directions and new ways for solving
old problems.

We believe that the Synod has given the Board for Missions
and all its partners in mission a clear, unifying mandate for
mission in the Mission Affirmations. In many resolutions in many
conventions the Synod adopted resolutions in order to enable,
implement, and accelerate the Synod’s involvement in mission:
Detroit Resolution 1-01B: Detroit Resolution 1-01C: New York
Resolution 1-02: Denver Resolution 1-05; Denver Resolution
1.15A; and New Orleans 1-06, to name just a few. New York
1-02 reads in part: “That the Board for Missions and its staff
be directed to pursue fully all opportunities for cooperative
endeavors that will magnify God’s name, glorify His kingdom,
conserve His manpower, and wisely use His resources without
denial of God’s Word.”

We are saddened by the fact that for the first time in many
a year the boards for mission of the major Lutheran Church

bodies have not had a joint meeting in this biennium.

Ever since 1965 we have sensed a growing together with
partners in mission overseas. Between 1965 and 1971 the Board
for Missions, the staff members, and overseas churchmen
seemed to sense a new vision and manifested a growing partici-
pation in mission. For the past few years a different spirit has
arisen which is deeply deplored. That different spirit prompted

the overseas churches to meet for a consultation in Hong Kong
and again in Tokyo to try to reassess the direction of mission in
their midst. The board report gives Jess than three lines and
comment to this and related matters.

To the New Orleans convention a number of board members
in a minority report said: “We deplore treating lightly or even
ignoring what happens in Christ’s mission as God’s people carry
on their ministries wherever God has placed them,” and also
said: ‘We deplore unilateral actions without consulting those
most directly affected by such actions.”

It was hoped that through the “forums” and “discussions”
of reconciliation there might have developed a fuller under-
standing of the Mission Affirmations. It seems apparent at the
moment that the majority of the board understand the Affirma-
tions quite differently than they are understood by us, the
mission staff — present and resigned, and the sister churches
round the world. It is hard to believe that the same church
that produced the exciting, stimulating, inspiring Mission
Affirmations would at this date be considering documents such
as “A Review of the 1965 Mission Affirmations” (“The Mission
of the Christian Church in the World Today”) and “A Lutheran
Stance Toward Ecumenism.”

We must commend the board for withdrawing the campus
ministry policy and the mission policy unilaterally formulated
during the 1971— 73 biennium. We also must commend the board
for withdrawing the Visitation Team Report. All three of the
above had not been given a sufficient breadth of discussion prior
to their passage and/or publication. We see wisdom in their
withdrawal.

As we submit this report, it is our prayer that it might be
helpful to the Synod. Absolution follows confession. We know
that reconciliation is possible among us through the Cross. The
mission is in the hands of the forgiving and sending Lord.

We remember our history. Through the decades our God has
helped us grow in our understanding of mission. He has used
and will continue to use our Synod as an instrument of mission
in His world.

In these crucial and final hours of the world’s history the
members of our Synod, guided by the Spirit of our God, will not
permit the pursuit of God's mission to be curtailed, diminished,
or diverted.

The times in which we live demand a witness to the Gospel
of Jesus Christ that is honest, bold, creative, and positive.

We ask that arrows in that direction be signaled by the Mis-
sion Study Commission and that the Synod provide leadership
for fulfillment of such a mission.

Paul W. F. Harms
Paul Martens

Note: Additional materials will be furnished to the convention floor committee
on missions.

M2-01B
Additional Minority Report

The foregoing report of the Board for Missions falls far short
of what is required in giving to the Synod a forthright report of
the activities of the Board for Missions during the 1973— 75
biennium. This lack of candor can only cause a further erosion

of confidence in the credibility of the Board for Missions and in
its capacity to carry out its assigned responsibilities.

Gordon E. Nelson
2-02

Report of Board for Church Extension

Members of the Church Extension Board were appointed
after the New Orleans convention. Terms of two laymen, one
pastor, and one teacher expired within the past biennium.
Rev. Raymond Wessler found it necessary to resign, so the
unexpired term of his membership also had to be filled.

The following appointments were made by the Board of
Directors: Pastors: Ewald Mueller (4 yrs.), Ridgewood, N. J.:
Louis Schuth (2 yrs.), Joliet. Ill.; Teacher: Prof. Vance Hinrichs,
Concordia College. Seward. Nebr.: Laymen: George Albers.
architect. St. Petersburg. Fla.: Howard Crumb, Federal Reserve
Bank, New York City.