LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1977, Page 68

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

68 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

have opposed it and continue to oppose it on the grounds
of new developments which have taken place and have
added to our doctrinal difficulty.

On the other hand, the vast majority of LCMS and
ALC people are not really well informed on the issue. As
a way of pointing out the dilemma which we face, I
would like to read to you from a letter sent me by a pastor
in a District which is considered perhaps to the left of
center by many people:

Iam sure you wish to hear from as many of the brethren
as possible on the decisive issues that face us at Dallas. I
wish to share one such concern with you—the question of
fellowship with the ALC. Time and events have shown that
we are not one in doctrine, and it seems we are drifting
further apart. For my part, I originally supported,
promoted, and voted for that fellowship. It is sad for me to
see the theological gulf that widens between us.

However, I request you to urge our Synod in convention
to continue this fellowship for a very practical reason—our
laymen. The disruption of fellowship at this time, I fear,
would have repercussions among our people, mostly in our
new and mission churches. I have such a church, and our
membership is a “mixed bag” of Lutherans. Many of them
have family in the surrounding ALC congregations. They
interworship with us on a regular basis on holidays and
special occasions. Severance or suspension at this time will
have serious effects in our church growth and life.

Iam not unaware of the Scylla and Charybdis we face in
Synod. It is frustrating, heartrending. In effect, we agree to
overlook false doctrine; but our beloved Synod has always
recognized the legitimacy of casuistry. We have always
remembered the needs of individual cases. I, for one, feel we
should go along with fellowship at this time for this
practical reason mentioned above.

This does not imply an eternal commitment to go
along—no matter what happens or what is taught in the
ALC—as one in doctrine and practice with them. It does
seem to put “the ball back in their court” by requesting a
serious discussion of the issues troubling us. This will give
us all time to work within our congregations.

We have been through a traumatic experience in our
Synod, namely the AELC. It has taken its toll in our
congregations. Many of our people are like the prizefighter
in the 15th round, rubber-kneed and glassy-eyed, simply
trying to hang on until the bell. I fear another body blow—
like severing the fellowship with the ALC—will floor many
of them.

I think the concerns of this brother in many ways
express the concerns of all of us. We must not, at this
point, after recovering from the tremendous doctrinal
controversy which has distressed us so much, now enter
into a new controversy which will only further divide
and fracture us.

Therefore it seems to me that the CTCR in protesting,
on one hand, against the doctrinal aberrations which we
fee] that the ALC, at least at the official level, is guilty of
and, on the other hand, maintaining the fellowship for
those who have found it to be a God-pleasing
relationship, and in order to continue to minister to our
brethren in the ALC, and in order to get our people better
informed on the issues, has chosen the best of the several
options.

Another problem which Committee 3 has to wrestle
with is the matter of continued membership in the
Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. The CTCR has
recommended continued participation in the Council.
The Synod’s Board of Directors has constantly
monitored the financial aspects of the program and in
some cases has withdrawn where we feel we have not
received value for our money. In view of the entire

situation, both within American Lutheranism and
within our own Synod, it seems to me that we could avoid
needless conflict and opening old wounds if we would
continue to remain in the Council.

I would also call the attention not only of Committee
3 but of all of you to the report on page 71 of the
Workbook, namely, the report of the Special Committee
on Doctrinal Statements. The matter of synodically
adopted doctrinal statements has caused a great deal of
conflict, much of it in my opinion unwarranted and more
the result of misunderstanding than of any kind of
centralization or ecclesiastical popery on the part of the
Synod. However, in view of the fact that so many people
feel strongly on the matter, a committee was created at
Anaheim to study and report to the Dallas convention. I
would commend to your careful study this report and, it
seems to me as one who has been very closely related to
the whole matter of the Synod’s doctrine and the
maintenance of the Synod’s doctrinal position, that the
proposed Handbook wording on page 73 is helpful and
should be adopted.

On the same page I would refer to the various
overtures dealing with the subject of peace and recon-
ciliation. We need to take these overtures seriously and
not only pass resolutions calling for unity and recon-
ciliation but actually practice it in our walk together and
in our conduct toward one another. The Eighth Com-
mandment needs very special attention during times of
conflict and even more during times when we hope to
reestablish peace and concord in our midst. Therefore it
would seem that Committee 3 could render a real service
to the Synod if it could develop a resolution which would
give us guidance and help in achieving peace and
harmony in our midst.

Also under Committee 3 is material dealing with the
subject of abortion. We are one of the few Protestant
Churches which have spoken publicly on this great evil.
It would seem wise, even though we have spoken in the
past, that perhaps the committee give serious thought to
some of the overtures dealing with this subject, so that
possibly we could once more bring to bear the witness of
our church to the society in which we live.

The President’s office has received a letter from
Doctor William Kohn asking that The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod and the Association of
Evangelical Lutheran Churches establish pulpit and
altar fellowship. I would refer you in this connection also
to the overtures submitted by the Board of Directors of
the English District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod as set forth on page 117. While the nature and
status of the AELC is still subject to a great deal of
debate, and while it is quite evident that the people of the
AELC need to determine exactly what their organiza-
tion actually is, whether it is a church body or a
movement, it is also part of the ongoing concern of the
LCMS to attempt to relate in a fraternal way to all
Lutherans in our country and in Canada. Therefore it
would seem that the advisable thing to do with the
request of Doctor Kohn is turn it over to our CTCR for
study and possible meetings between AELC people and
our CTCR to assess the situation and to give considera-
tion to the whole matter of pulpit and altar fellowship. It

i
3
i
i
H
i

somata