# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S334
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

452 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

canonical books of the Old and New Testaments; 2. The confes.
sional writings contained in the Book of Concord; and 3. The Brief
Statement adopted in 1932. a

We respectfully memorialize The Lutheran Church — mig.
souri Synod, assembled in convention in Milwaukee, to restrict
its church fellowship to those church bodies only which are wil].
ing to bind themselves to the entire doctrinal stand of the above
Confessions, also with respect to the practical application of those
doctrines (e.g., our official position with respect to the lodge).

Resolved, That we petition Synod, in harmony with its official
doctrinal position (Brief Statement, Par. 29), to exercise evan.
gelical doctrinal discipline, whenever necessary, in the interest
of preserving the truth within our own Synod.

‘Adopted on March 28, 1950, by
Trinity Ev. LurHeran Concrecarion
or WESTVILLE,. IND.
AnpREW Carson, Chairman
ELMER Luss, Secretary
Water M. Ave-Latiemant, Pastor

Adopted on March 30, 1950, by
St. Paut’s Ev. LurHeran Cuyurcg
oF Otts, INp.
L. R. Scumipt, Chairman
JONHENRY MILLER, Secretary
WALTER M. Ave-LaLLemant, Pastor

608]
t Where Does Synod Now Stand?

We, the undersigned, members of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod, having taken cognizance of the apparent increasing
disunity in our Synod and being deeply concerned about the
doctrinal position and the unionistic ‘practices of leading members
of this church body, herewith submit the following overture and
respectfully request a clear and unequivocal reply at this con-
vention, since the answers to our questions involve no need for
further study, the truth being clearly presented in Holy Writ, the
Lutheran. Confessions, the exposition of the Small Catechism as
in use in the Missouri Synod, and the Brief Statement of this body
(as accepted in 1932 and reaffirmed in 1947).

.1.. Does the venerable Synod approve or does it reject the
exposition of Rom. 16: 17-18 contained in a St. Louis faculty opinion
issued in 1946 and referred to in the Lutheran Witness, Vol. LXV,

_ p. 87, and footnote (cp. Vol. LXVI, p. 59, footnote 10)? This

JNTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 458

agpiniion” nullifies, in part, § 28 of the Brief Statement and contra-
dicts the exposition of the Small Catechism, Question 186, D. See

“Overture No. 607, as approved by the 1947 convention. (Pro-
ceedings, p. 514£.)

2. Does the venerable Synod approve or does it reject the
teaching on Prayer Fellowship presented in Doctor Theodore
Graebner’s pamphlet bearing that name and as practiced in the
unionistic meetings which are connected with the co-operation. of
our men in the welfare agencies of various large cities, in confer-
ence with National Lutheran Council representatives, in inter-
synodical laymen’s organizations, etc.? See Proceedings of the
1947 convention, pp. 514—517, and earlier articles on the subject
by Dr. Theo. Graebner, Dr. Wm. Arndt, and other teachers of
the Church.

3. Does the venerable Synod approve or does it reject the
unionism that is being practiced by virtue of the participation
of St. Louis faculty members in celebrations, institutes, and semi-
nars which are far from bearing a mere academic character, like-
wise the common devotions and the worship intimacy of the
Association of Lutheran Seminarians? Such fellowshiping has
taken place at Dubuque, at St. Louis, at Columbus, Ohio, at May-
wood, II, and elsewhere, and the meetings had public recognition.

4. Does the venerable Synod approve or does it reject the
teaching as found in the classrooms of the St. Louis Seminary, in
conference discussions, and in the Lutheran Witness:

a. That “there is a visible manifestation of the invisible
Church,” that “we do not declare invisibility to be an attri-
bute of the Church”? See the Brief Statement, § 25; expo-
sition of the Small Catechism, Question 176, A.

‘b. That, as openly stated by at least one member of the
St. Louis faculty, the declaration of our Lutheran Confes-
sions of the Pope’s being the Antichrist according to clear
statements of Scripture is not acceptable?

ce. That the St. Louis faculty has openly stated, in a faculty
“opinion” dated May 24, 1949, that the obligations of a valid
engagement do not have the binding force of holy marriage?
See the exposition of the Small Catechism, Question 61, and
many statements of former teachers of the Church, par-
ticularly of Luther.

d. That, as recently repeatedly stated by Dr. William Arndt,
there are “doctrines” of Holy Writ which are not divisive
of church fellowship? See the venerable doctor’s essay at
the convention of the Western District, 1948, and in the two
California Districts, 1949.