LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 83

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Robert Preus and Dr. Maier have suggested steps that
might be taken to resolve the matter, including continu-
jng discussions within Dr. Maier’s primary peer group,
namely, the Fort Wayne seminary faculty. Such discus-
sions are currently taking place.

- | thank Dr. Maier for his cooperation and good will
and pray that God will richly bless the efforts of Dr.
Maier, President Robert Preus, and the Fort Wayne
oard of Regents and faculty to bring this matter to a
God-pleasing conclusion. To spare Dr. Maier, the semi-
nary, and the Synod unnecessary pain and embarrass-
ment, I have requested that these efforts take place with
Dr. Maier’s supervisors and within his peer groups,
ather than in a public forum.

"May the Lord of the church help all of us to confess
learly and boldly that we are justified by grace, for
hrist’s sake, through faith.

Ralph A. Bohlmann
April 20, 1983

Appendix D

Proposal for a New Inter-Lutheran
Association

s. It is my present opinion that the time has come for
“American Lutherans to consider the formation of anew
tional inter-Lutheran association to replace the
resent Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and perhaps
her inter-Lutheran agencies at the earliest possible
te.
Because the CTCR is the agency of the Synod with
primary responsibility for advising the Synod and
‘President in matters of church relations, I am
ewith requesting the Commission to review this
aposal and to offer whatever counsel and support you
onsider appropriate. I will also be seeking the advice of
ther synodical leaders on this proposal, and I have
ed that it be placed on the agendas of the November
neetings of the Lutheran Council and of its church body
sidents. Announcement of this course of action was
ncluded in my remarks to the national conventions of
AELC, LCA, and ALC, Sept. 7—10.

Rationale

Three primary factors underlie this proposal: the
mation of a new church body, the changed priority of

ng theological consensus, and the growing unsuit-
ity of many council programs. Because of these
actors, two others also bear consideration, namely, the

ability of broadened membership and the need for
ater effectiveness and cost efficiency. Let us look
fiefly. at each of these factors.

‘The decision of three LCUSA member bodies to
@ new church body. The Lutheran Council exists
ther the witness, the work, and the interests of the
articipating bodies; to seek to achieve theological
Hisensus in a systematic and continuing way on the
of the Scriptures and the witness of the Lutheran
essions; to provide an instrumentality through
ch ‘the Participating bodies may work together in

a

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 83

fulfilling their responsibility of Christian service where
coordination or joint activity is deemed by them to be
desirable and feasible” (LCUSA Constitution, Art. IV).
The new church body now being formed may well prefer
to carry out some current council activities itself, while
the two other council members may also elect to alter
current council assignments in view of the formation of
the new church body. Without doubt, the decision to
form a new church body necessitates a careful analysis
of all LCUSA programs by all LCUSA members, accom-
panied by the identification of those current Lutheran
Council programs which the new church body or the
other council members wish to conduct jointly and
which programs they prefer to do as individual church
bodies. For the sake of both the new body and The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, this activity must
not be delayed, whether the present council structure is
retained or a successor association is created. In my
judgment, it would be preferable, for pragmatic reasons
alone, to create a new association for those functions we
choose to do together rather than attempt to adapt the
present council structure to new circumstances. This
association might also provide a means for combining
other inter-Lutheran activities and thus reduce the
number of agencies.

2. Changed priority for seeking theological consen-
sus. The September 1982 convention actions of three
LCUSA-member church bodies establishing a policy of
Interim Eucharistic Sharing with the Episcopalian
Church clearly demonstrate that those bodies do not
attach the same priority to theological consensus that
we doin The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. One of
the chief purposes and objectives in forming the Lu-
theran Council in the mid ’60s was “‘to seek to achieve
theological consensus in a systematic and continuing
way on the basis of the Scriptures and the witness of the
Lutheran Confessions” (Constitution, Art. IV, b.). Many
members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
remember how this important objective was stressed by
then President John Behnken and others as a chief
reason for forming the council. While some important
steps have been taken toward that objective, it must be
frankly acknowledged that the LCA, ALC, and AELC,
particularly in recent years, have moved away from
rather than closer to the doctrinal position of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The divergent
theological directions within the council were clearly
articulated in the FODT report issued by the council
some years ago and have become increasingly apparent
in many areas of the council’s program. But my point
here is not that the theological dissensus between The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, on the one hand,
and other Lutheran Council members, on the other, is
too great for our continuation in a common agency; on
the contrary, a council whose members shared the same
commitment to overcoming doctrinal differences might
indeed provide a ray of hope. My pointis rather that the
establishment of Interim Eucharistic Sharing with a
church body that admittedly does not hold the Lutheran
confessional position clearly means that three member