LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1979, Page 61

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

:
i
}
4
i
:
i
:
fl
(
q
|
;
:
|
t
‘|

“ST ON CREP NRO

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 61

discussions take place not only within the confines of
the two committees which came into being at the action
of the Denver convention of 1969 but also at the
grassroots level, a meeting was held that included
professors of all of the seminaries of the two church
bodies. The report of this meeting also is included in the
Report of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations. While I would be guilty of utopianism if I
were to say that much progress has been made in
reaching a closer meeting of minds, I want to refer also
to the resolution of Dallas which calls for astudy on our
part of the whole doctrine of church fellowship. It might
interest you to know that we have requests both from
the Evangelical Lutheran Synod as well as from The
American Lutheran Church to carry on these studies in
consultation with representatives from their churches.

I believe I speak not only personally but for our
committee on fellowship with The American Lutheran
Church as well as the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations in suggesting that the Synod at this
convention not take any action relative to the ALC
fellowship but rather await the outcome of these
synodwide studies of the whole subject of church fellow-
ship. It was interesting that in discussion with the
Evangelical Lutheran Synod we felt that we were
agreed on the subject in principle, but certain positions,
such as fellowship with The American Lutheran
Church, indicated a difference in application of these
principles. We have not had opportunity to discuss this
matter in sufficient depth with The American Lutheran
Church, but you will remember that some years ago The
American Lutheran Church accused us of changing our
basis of fellowship with them. This our commissioners
steadfastly rejected, but I do believe, in view of the vast
spectrum of opinion in our church on the subject of what
constitutes fellowship, the problems relating to pulpit
and altar fellowship, the question of altar fellowship as
a separate item, the whole matter of unionism, our
relationship to the Lutheran Council, the new statement
of the ALC on Communion practices, and other factors,
we should not take action at this convention but hold off
on this until the subject of fellowship has been thor-
oughly studied and discussed at all levels in our church,
including congregations, pastoral conferences, and
other groups within our church body. I would hate very
much to see us fragment ourselves over this subject. One
of our leaders at one point suggested that we ought to get
out of the “pulpit-and-altar-fellowship business,” and
this is a subject which needs a great deal of study.

We still have before us a 1969 resolution relative to
establishing fellowship with the Lutheran Church in
Australia. We are discussing in the International
Lutheran Conference the question of whether partner
churches affiliated with Missouri are in fellowship with
one another. We also have the matter of Lutheran World
Federation membership on the part of some of these
churches. It is a vast subject, one which ramifies not
only all over our own North American Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod but into the partner churches, into the
possible reestablishment of fellowship with certain
groups, as well as the continuation of fellowship with

The American Lutheran Church. We ought to move very
patiently and cautiously and carefully on this matter, so
that we arrive at the greatest possible degree of agree-
ment by the greatest possible number of people.

On a related matter, there are some areas of our
church practice which I think are somewhat getting out
of hand. I hear repeated reports about open Communion
in some of our congregations. It seems to me that we
ought very respectfully and lovingly to ask such con-
gregations to cease and desist from this practice as a
matter of congregational polity. That Communion is
given toa non-Lutheran under certain circumstances or
to a Lutheran of a church body not in fellowship with us
at the present timeis a matter of pastoral practice rather
than of congregational or synodical polity or policy.

I would also call your attention to the Report of the
Commission on Worship, and those of the Special
Hymnal Review Committee which was created to study
the contents of the Lutheran Book of Worship at the
Dallas convention and subsequently advise the Synod
as to what action should be taken.

Their recommendation to publish a modified version
seems to bea wise choice. The deletion of portions which
have not been approved by our doctrinal reviewers and
the Special Hymnal Review Committee, and the inclu-
sion of such longstanding favorites as the Common
Service and a number of hymns, ought to satisfy those
in our church who want a book with “something old,
something new.” The suggestion to include the six chief
parts and the Christian Questions and Answers of
Luther’s Small Catechism is well taken.

The Special Hymnal Review Committee is to be
commended for its painstaking work, and the present
Commission on Worship has made the refinements
called for.

I hope that the delegates, after studying these re-
ports, would act favorably in this matter, so that we will
have a new hymnal next year. By this time sufficient
circulation and testing of the materials to be included
will have taken place. Delays would only promote the
use of the present Lutheran Book of Worship in our
congregations and divide us further.

Another proposal before Committee 3 is the request
of the Brazil District that it be given partner-church
status. I recommend that this resolution be adopted.
This is the greatest mission field the Missouri Synod
has ever worked in in its history—180,000 Missouri
Synod Lutherans, in 1,500 congregations, and growing
daily. The church is now entirely indigenous. There is
not a single North American missionary there. The
decision to become a partner church has been made by
the Brazilians themselves, without prompting or hin-
drance on the part of anybody in North America. I think
that in order to guarantee that partner-church status is
properly established as to constitution, financial con-
trols, higher education, legal matters, and general
operations, it would be wise to adopt an enabling
resolution authorizing the action and endorsing it, but
putting it into the hands of the Board of Directors of the
Synod for final implementation. As mentioned pre-
viously, we have made too many mistakes in the past in