# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S342
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

oft

468 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

We hold that it is the inalienable right and duty of s
and its members to express a judgment on the documents in
tion, since they still exist unwithdrawn as public statem, aues-
members of Synod and since, irrespective of the intent of ts
porters of the document, they in plain language present teach?”
in conflict with clear Scripture, advocate positions contrary to Bs
Scriptural position of Synod and its Confessions,. raise tte

(E. g., “Statement,” Propositions 5, 8, 11. Compare: Ps. 119-196.
8:31-32; Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10; Matt. 7:15; Prov. 28:9; Jer ei Joka
Formula of Concord (Trigl., 1095): “no room is given to the least ¢ 31;
Syn. Constitution, Art. II, 1: “a united defense against schism and oe
tarianism (Rom. i6:17)"; ‘Brief Statement, Sec.28—29: “Since Geto
dained that His Word only, without admixture of human doctrine, ‘be
taught and believed in the Christian Church, 1 Pet. 4:11; John 8:37
1 Tim. 6: 3-4, all Christians are required by God to discriminate betwee’
orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, and, in case they have straver
into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them, Rom.16:17. We repudat
unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctri te
as disobedience to God’s command, as the real cause of the orig; and
continuance of divisions in the Church, Rom.16:17; 2 John 9—19 and
as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of. God entire}
2 Tim. 2:17ff. 29. The orthodox character of a Church is established ne
by its mere name nor by its outward acceptance of, and subscription to,
an orthodox creed, but by the doctrine which is actually taught in its
pulpits, in its theological seminaries and in its publications. On the other
hand, a Church does not forfeit its orthodox character through the
casual intrusion of errors, provided these are combated and eventually
removed by means of doctrinal discipline, Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 1:3.”

Lehre u. Wehre, XXXVI (1890), 262: “We Missourians consider
a church body an orthodox body only when the true doctrine is pro-
claimed from all pulpits and professors’ chairs and in all writings which
appear publicly within the organization, and on the other hand, every
erroneous teaching is put away, in the manner indicated by God, as soon
as it makes its appearance. ... Were it established that only one pastor
were preaching false doctrine or only one periodical were in the service
of false doctrine, and we did not put a stop to this false doctrine, we
would have ceased to be an orthodox Synod and would have become
a unionistic fellowship.”

Lehre u. Wehre, XIV (1868), 68 (Walther): “We .. . maintain that
in the orthodox church no error contrary to God’s clear Word dare be
tolerated; that in the orthodox church it dare not be made a matter
of liberty to depart from God’s clear Word even in the least point, be it
positively or negatively, directly or indirectly; that every such departure
from God’s clear Word within the orthodox church, even if it consisted
only in the denial that Balaam’s ass spoke, demands that steps be taken
against it, and that when all instructions, admonitions, warnings, threats,
and all patience that has been shown have proven themselves fruitless
and ineffectual in persuading the respective person or communion to
give up their contradiction of God’s clear Word, finally nothing but
excommunication or schism can result.”

Syn. Catechism, Qu. 186: “We use the doctrine of the Church prop-
erly —D. When we avoid all false churches and all other organizations
that profess a religion that is false. ... Rom. 16:17”; Qu. 326: “The Lord’s

" Supper must be denied—D. To those of a different faith, since the

Lord’s Supper is a testimony of the unity of faith... . Rom.16:17.”
Concordia Cyclopedia, “Unionism”: “Religious unionism consists in
joint worship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is
an agreement to disagree. In effect, it denies the doctrine of the clearness
of Scripture. It would treat certain doctrines as fundamental or essen’
and others as non-essential to Christian unity.” Syn. Proceedings, 1941,

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 469

11: “That in the meantime it be understood that no pulpit-, altar-,

or prayer

Church.
tier of Pres. J. W. Behnken to the clergy, April 30, 1946, pp. 910:

ai ihere me points [in “A Statement”] with which we were
“But there arore. not Pow A agreement. This holds true also of the
» ‘them ions” and also of the accompanying letter . . . we voiced our
a ment with some of the points in “A Statement” as well as with
the accompanying letter and insisted that these be corrected or with-
drawn.”)
sated charges against Synod and its members past and present,
at proof presented that all processes of orderly Christian
dmonition and discipline had been exhausted, and embody mis-
representations of teaching and practice within Synod.
g., “Statement,” Deplorations 2, 4, 5, 8, 9; “Accompanying Letter,”
. aph 5; Speaking the Truth in Love, p.11: “Fears, suspicions,
Perannized consciences, perversions of Scripture, the binding of souls
through human interpretations — how can a Church so afflicted with the
manifestations of legalism do her work in a manner befitting her oppor-
tunities... ? ; p.16: “The over-all picture is that of a body infested
for many. years with a legalistic spirit.”; p.17: “There is an entire, yes,
a complete and absolute ignoring of the doctrine of the Una Sancta
(the: One Holy Christian Church)”; p.18: “Every call for repentance
from President H. C. Schwan’s time to our own has been (largely)
ignored”; p. 20: “Finally, one of the most pernicious effects of a legalistic
judging of brethren is the premium which it places on theological
illiteracy. The thorough student is bound to get himself into trouble.
My correspondence shows that this is a Synod-wide condition”; p. 21:
“fo what extent some theologians will use their learning and ingenuity
to arrive at certain desired interpretations is evidenced in a recent tract
issued against the ‘Statement.’ ”)

-p.303, fellowship has been established between us and the American
} ”

Because the “Statement” documents present such principles
and charges as here set forth, Trinity Congregation rejects these
papers as containing antiscriptural, unproved, and slanderous alle-
gations, and earnestly petitions the Centennial Convention, for the
sake of the preservation and defense of the truth of God’s Word
and of true unity in teaching and spirit within Synod: ;

1, To adopt the five declarations requested by ten appointees

of the President of Synod in an overture submitted under
date of February 25, 1947;

2. To declare its rejection of the “Statement” documents for

the reasons adduced above;

3. To direct the Presidency of Synod to solicit from the sig-

natories of the “Statement” papers an unequivocal with-
drawal of the documents for the reason stated;

4. To take action in the 1947 convention on the petitions here “

made, in harmony with the declaration of the Preface to the
Book of Concord (Trigl., p.25): “We will also. take pains,
if either controversies already composed should be renewed,
or new controversies concerning religion should arise, to
remove and settle them betimes, for the purpose of avoiding
offense, without long and dangerous digressions.” :

Trintry LUTHERAN CHurcH, Oak Park, Itt.
¥. L. Krert, Secretary