LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 12

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

12 PRESIDENT’S TRIENNIAL REPORT

Cease-fire arrangements and peace treaties do little
good until they have been communicated to soldiers in
the front lines of war. And so the Synod may be a hu-
man arrangement, but it is designed to implement God’s
purposes.

If the Synod has become big and complex business,

I thank God, for the Synod is in the most important -

business in the world. The Synod is an institution, and
we treasure it because as such it is an instrument for
the kingdom of God in this world. As chief adminis-
trator I have seen the variety of wonderful human gifts
God has given us for carrying out His work. I have
witnessed the high intelligence and sensitive concern
with which members of the Synod have worked to define
and refine operations of the Synod for more effective
Kingdom work. It has been my privilege and responsi-
bility to enlist large numbers of our people in special
assignments by making those appointments which you
have noted elsewhere and which have been listed from
time to time in official publications.

During the past triennium the Synod has strength-
ened an important planning and coordinating function
through the Council of Administrators under the leader-
ship of Dr. Walter F. Wolbrecht. The work of this coun-
cil and its good influence have only begun. The imple-
mentation of the Synod’s resolutions in areas such as
this has been neither simple nor sudden. Adjustments
must be made carefully, and we dare not forget that we
are asking busy administrators to assume heavy addi-
tional and time-consuming responsibilities.

The Board of Directors continues to bear the re-
sponsibility for carrying out plans by making vital ad-
ministrative and policy decisions for the Synod. Balanc-
ing the budget is difficult enough when receipts and dis-
bursements do not match. It is still more difficult bal-
ancing budgets when one finds it almost impossible to
reconcile the gifts that God’s people bring with the gifts
that God has given His people. It is still more difficult
when budget decisions will certainly cut back the ulti-
mate supply of church workers at a time when there is
already a manpower deficit, or to decline the urgent
appeals of missionaries who come asking for facilities,
equipment, and men simply because they are doing the
job we sent them to do.

This convention will receive a proposal for aggressive
and immediate action to meet the demands that brought
both Venture of Faith and Forward in Faith into being.
The needs won’t go away by closing our eyes to them.
And as Christians we neither can nor want to close our
eyes to such Kingdom needs. Nor do I want to imply
that I am reporting Faith Forward as a failure. It was
my honor to serve as chairman of the Faith Forward
executive committee, and I report frankly that Doctor
Wiederaenders and his staff carried out the intention of
the Cleveland resolution faithfully and vigorously. The
results of their programs to deepen the spiritual life are
known only to God. By any standard of comparison the
financial goals of Faith Forward have not been met.
Latest reports show that 3,250 congregations, according
to present trends, will conduct special local efforts to

reach or exceed their 1965 commitments in an attempt to
close the gap between Faith Forward goals and reality.

Thirty-four North American Districts and our two
Districts in South America carry out the aspects of the
program of the Synod. With a view toward promoting
this joint program, I have attended as many District
conventions and conferences as possible. My office pro-
vided official representation at all District conventions.

In an effort to strengthen ties and to provide better
coordination, leadership conferences were conducted in
every District following the District conventions of 1963.
Last year the Synod sponsored regional meetings of
District leaders in eight major metropolitan centers of
this continent.

In an attempt to exercise the leadership committed
to the President’s office, I did what I could to consult
with the synodical institutions of higher learning. The
President’s office has been represented at election meet-
ings for professors and has met regularly with the ad-
ministrations and faculties of our colleges and sem-
inaries. My requests have also been granted to meet
with graduating classes of our terminal schools in order
that I might emphasize areas of responsibility and priv-
ilege to which our new workers are being called. In
many ways these graduates represent the highest gift
and greatest resource the church has. I encourage the
church to value this gift by exerting every effort to nur-
ture these men and women and to recruit the best of our
membership for roles of leadership in the future.

At this point I want to record the warm response my
office received whenever I attempted to report on
developments within the church. The question-and-
answer, or press-conference, technique has been used a
great deal. This device has proved helpful in outlining
and interpreting the work of our church. During the
past three years I began to send out an informal letter
occasionally. This “Memo to My Brethren” has been
helpful as have also opportunities to grant interviews
or write columns for church publications. Only the
pressure of time and schedule has prevented more com-
munication of this type and also limited my direct and
personal contacts with the church at large.

Again I can report that the Synod’s auxiliaries and
many affiliated agencies have responded to calls for
service. Not the least of these is Valparaiso University,
an increasingly important source of leadership training
for lay and professional workers. It has been my
pleasure to counsel with such groups frequently in the
interest of defining goals and maintaining good relation-
ships.

By its very nature, the President’s office has a con-
sultative relationship with many boards, commissions,
and agencies of the church. I have devoted major time
and attention specifically to the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations, which was created by the
Synod at its convention in Cleveland and began to func-
tion two and one-half years ago. The commission, as its
report shows, has worked steadily, seriously, and also
under severe time restrictions to present you with spe-
cific recommendations for your consideration. Not all

}
i
i
j