# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S838
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 255

ences between you and the American Lutheran Church are a closed
chapter and that you are definitely committed to the Resolutions
of 1938 as a settlement of the doctrinal controversies between the
two synods? We ask this because of the disturbing reference in
the report of May 11 to the question of unionism as “precisely ...
the obstacle” that keeps the synods apart, because of the equally
disturbing silence on doctrinal obstacles, and because of the re-
iterated reference to “our (Missouri and ‘A.L.C.) common doc-
trinal position.”

We would much prefer to assume: a) that when the Fort
Wayne Convention resolved to continue “negotiations ... in an
effort to establish doctrinal unity”; and when “in addition to any
controversial doctrines that may need further study and clarifica-
tion” it specifically enumerated four points as requiring further
“careful study” —it indicated that the chapter was not yet closed
and that the doctrinal controversies were not yet considered as
settled; and b) that when the convention instructed its representa-
tives to make every effort to prepare one document of agreement
in place of the three included in the St.Louis Resolutions of 1938,
it did so with the thought in mind that such a procedure would
reveal whether the Brief Statement and the Declaration are in fact
reconcilable with each other, and would therefore provide a test
of the doctrinal soundness of the latter document.

4. In view of the unionistic attitude of the American Lutheran
Church, which has become increasingly evident, will you not agree
that further negotiations for establishing church fellowship could
only undermine the testimony that has previously been given and
should therefore be discontinued for the time being? Such an
action would not be inconsistent with the course followed by your
Synod in an earlier stage of these intersynodical negotiations when
in reviewing the Chicago Theses of 1928 the convention of 1929
accepted the following recommendation of its committee: “It now
seems to your committee a.matter of wisdom to desist from inter-
synodical conferences. By entering into a closer relationship with
the adherents of the Norwegian Opgjoer, the opponents have given
evidence that they do not hold our position in the doctrine of con-
version and.election. In view of this action further conference
would be useless and would only be creating the impression that
we are endeavoring to come to an understanding, which is not
the case.” (Proceedings, 1929, p.133; as quoted by Dr. Poppen,
A. L, Conference Convention of 1942). — Does the same conclusion
not apply today?

May we express the hope that your consideration of, and
answers to, these frank questions may help to dispel the confusion

st
“ah
eI