LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1979, Page 60

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

60 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

to do the kind of forward planning and working which
they ought to be doing. It also has, of course, increased
the political activity and made it possible for everyone
to gear for action every two years rather than saving
their powder for every three years.

A final factor regarding the two-year convention
cycle is the enormous cost of conventions, of bringing
such a huge multitude of people together every two
years, often at some distance from the population center
of the church, in order to do a great many things which
either should be done without convention action by the
respective boards and committees of the Synod or to
discuss that which is so self-evident that any group of
people who had any sense about them at all would have
said, “Why haven’t you done this before? You don’t need
our permission to do the kinds of things you are now
asking us to endorse.” For example, I do not believe that
we should open a college without convention action. But
I see no reason why many of the things that the Board
for Higher Education reports to the convention for
approval need synodical approval. They ought to be
self-evident as proper work of the Board for Higher
Education.

I see no reason why the Mission Board needs synod-
ical approval to open a new mission field. If the money is
available, they should be encouraged to do this and not
wait for two or three years until the next convention.
Many more examples of this could be brought.

But we must remember that structure exists only to
facilitate action. What we need is an active forward
thrust in spiritual life, in stewardship of the Lord’s gifts
in missions, evangelism, social ministry, parish re-
newal, and love and charity among us. If structural
reorganization will help, then let’s have it. If it does not
help, then let’s not waste time. David Preus’s remarks
about “tinkering with the machinery” apply in intra-
church planning as well as interchurch. The important
thing is the mission of the church—not the machinery.
This must be our basic concern—not even the matter of
centralization or decentralization. How do we get the
Word out? How do we bring the Gospel of Christ most
effectively to a world lost in sin?

For wise stewardship, for the development of our
synodical program, for expansion of Christ’s mission
and ministry, and for sound fiscal responsibility toward
all people and all aspects of our work we need:

1. Coordinated planning and goal setting between
the Synod and Districts and, to the greatest
degree, congregations.

2. The ability to fill the decisionmaking void be-
tween conventions, as our Districts already have
developed.

3. Our boards need to be policymakers and not
administrative. We have competent staffs. Let’s
use them.

4. The boards, through their staffs, should have day-
by-day reporting responsibility to the synodical
President under his duties as set forth in Article
XI of the Constitution.

5. We must avoid a federation-of-Districts concept of
church government, as the Task Force has wisely
advised.

Which leaves me then to say some further positive
things about the report of the Task Force on Consti-
tution, Structure, and Bylaws. They have segmented
their report in such a way that the church can consider
each of the items separately, can take separate action,
and thus can adopt portions, if not the entire report. I
ask that the committee give serious consideration to
each portion, recognizing the fact that they are not
necessarily an integrated whole in that all needs to be
adopted if certain portions of it are not acceptable. So
please consider each item on its own merits.

I believe the idea of moving to a three- or four-year
convention cycle instead of a two-year is excellent,
although this is somewhat contingent on the adoption
of the idea of an assembly. Likewise, we could cut the
size of the convention in half and accomplish the same
amount of work.

The proposal on the relationship between the Synod
and its auxiliaries and synodically related service
agencies is an excellent item and should be adopted. I
certainly hope that the proposed Bylaws entitled “Aux-
iliary and Listed Service Organizations” with a few
alterations will be approved. In view of the challenges
we face throughout the world, there is no room for
overlap and unnecessary duplication.

Meetings have been held in the past biennium
involving auxiliaries and agencies related in one way or
another to the Synod, to see if we can’t do a better job of
communicating and coordinating and cooperating in
our mutual efforts to carry out the mission which Christ
has given to all of us as His church.

I could go on at great lengths citing the need for
greater coordination of efforts and communication and
cooperation. It seems to me that the Synod ought to
stress to the Districts, our schools, and our auxiliaries
and agencies our willingness to cooperate in every way,
to open up the avenues of communication, and to assure
our desire to coordinate. I am confident that such an
expression on the part of the Synod would be met with
equally enthusiastic response on the part of ail.

So much for the work of Floor Committee 2.

III. Theology and Church Relations

As usual, Floor Committee 3 will deal with the
largest number of reports and overtures. I hope that the
members of this committee have thoroughly acquainted
themselves with the Workbook Report of the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations. The issue of
fellowship with The American Lutheran Church is
always before us. The 1977 resolution declared “A State
of ‘Fellowship in Protest’ with the ALC.” Perhaps a
more felicitous term might be used to describe a situ-
ation in which we continue in fellowship but in protest
against certain positions and actions of The American
Lutheran Church, notably the ordination of women and
certain positions regarding the doctrine of Scriptures.
In keeping with our resolution of Dallas that the

pee ee cent na Angee pe eee eye tet ne nati