LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1995, Page 65

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT 65

commission are perhaps two of the most important issues
your committee will consider.

A large number of overtures support the continued ex-
istence of the Commission on Worship as a free-standing
commission. Over the past several years I have met on nu-
merous occasions with our Commission on Worship and
with the Conference of Congregational Services. Both
groups raise very valid concerns in regard to this issue.
After listening carefully to all the concerns which have been
raised, it would be my strong feeling that our Synod ab-
solutely does need a free-standing Commission on Worship.

There are many throughout our Synod who notice that
in the area of worship practices our Synod has an undue di-
versity, which in many ways is not a healthy trend. We as a
synodical family want to walk together in the matter of our
worship practices as our Synod’s Constitution clearly indi-
cates (Art. III 7; Art. VI' 4). More and more I am hearing
from concerned church workers and laypeople who truly de-
sire guidance and leadership from the Synod in regard to
worship issues.

We Lutherans understand that in the Divine Service,
God is giving us His forgiveness through the Word and
Sacraments. Now is the time for us to emphasize the
majesty and dignity of Lutheran liturgical worship in re-
sponse to the sectarian “entertainment” styles of worship
we see around us in other church bodies. Thus, I am con-
vinced that our Synod needs a free-standing Commission
on Worship, with a full-time executive director. This inde-

pendent commission needs to work closely with the pro- .

gram boards of our Synod. Your committee also has any
number of overtures before it requesting some precise clar-
ification in regard to our Lutheran worship practices and
our Synod’s commitment to the same. I believe these over-
tures deserve your careful consideration.

But I also need to share some concerns I have with the
idea of a combined Board for Congregational Services. I
have heard concerns from staff members as well as from
persons throughout the Synod. There seems to be a concern
about losing the specialized skills and services of each
board if the CCS simply blends them all together into one
large board. Parish education, evangelism, stewardship,
and youth ministry all require specialized skill and exper-
tise. Before we approve the merger of these boards, it may
be wise to study how, by merging these functions under the
same board, we will impact this sort of specialization. I
have high regard for the coordination which has gone into
the development and work of the Conference of Congrega-
tional Services. We should continue to encourage this sort
of coordination. Many have been asking throughout the
Synod if it would not be wiser simply to continue the Con-
ference of Congregational Services without merging our ex-
isting boards of youth, stewardship, parish education, and
evangelism. I believe that this option deserves your com-
mnittee’s study.

Committee 3: Theology
and Church Relations
Committee 3, I need to say to you also: Ours is the time

of unprecedented opportunity and challenge in the Lord.
Your committee has a very large number of overtures

which discuss quite a diverse number of issues. Permit me
to suggest what some of the key overtures facing you are
as you work through your chapter.

The item which received the most attention from those
who submitted overtures is the CTCR statement on the ser-
vice of women. The CTCR itself recommends that this doc-
ument, as well as the other documents which accompany
it, continue to receive the Synod’s careful study, but that
the document on the service of women not be the subject of
any particular action by this convention. This counsel
seems very appropriate, particularly in light of the many
valid concerns raised by the CTCR minority as well as
many, many others across our church body. Perhaps your
committee will suggest a particular action in regard to this
document, or it may choose instead to defer the document
for further study. But in either case, it would be good to
note that during a period of continued study the Synod’s
position remains that of the 1970 CCM ruling, reproduced
in the Workbook.

The future of the CTCR also received considerable at-
tention in the overtures. The CTCR came into existence in
1962. As several of the overtures indicate, this may be a
good opportunity for our Synod to study the best way to ad-
dress theological issues facing our Synod. As we move into
the future, we need to avoid any rash action. Overtures
such as 3-87, 3-102, and 3-103 suggest a responsible
process for evaluating the future of the CTCR.

Your committee will also have the joy of working with
overtures calling for the Synod to recognize that altar and
pulpit fellowship exists between our church body and the
Free Evangelical—Lutheran Synod in South Africa and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Paraguay. What a joy it
truly is to be able, as a Synod, to formalize the blessing of
church fellowship in this way.

Your committee also has a number of overtures which
call on our Synod to reaffirm clearly our position on impor-
tant matters such as the nature and function of the office of
the holy ministry; the ordination of women, homosexuality,
altar fellowship, unionism, the use of the name Lutheran
and so forth. I think that it would be wise for your commit-
tee to consider seriously those overtures calling for our
Synod to reaffirm its position on altar fellowship (Overtures
3-14, 3-16 to 3-23, 3-31, 3-32). Also, it may be good for the
committee to give attention to the overtures concerning lay
ministry (Overtures 3-24, 3-27, 3-28, 3-117, 3-118). Perhaps
we as a Synod need to revisit our approach toward lay min-
istry. Another important area for study and consideration
would be the issue of unionism (Overtures 3-24 to 3-26).
The issue of the name Lutheran is also a very challenging
one (Overtures 3-120 to 3-130). And there are other impor-
tant theological issues before you.’

I recognize that some would feel that because our Synod
has already spoken on these issues, or because a CTCR doc-
ument in the past has discussed a particular issue, our
Syned does not need yet another resolution on these issues.
While I understand this feeling, I feel strongly that there
is great wisdom in reaffirming our Synod’s position on key
issues. Just as our congregations, week after week, repeat
the words of the ancient creeds by way of reaffirmation and

‘ confession, so it is good for our Synod boldly to testify before