# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1156
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

610 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

liche Dogmatik, Vol. 3, pp. 491, 487—488; Lutheran Confessio
Concordia Triglot, pp. 21—23, 855, 857; Luther, St. Louis Editio.
XVII: 1180). Accordingly a church body has become a unionist”
fellowship when it does not without delay reprove, combat, and
insist upon the retraction of every unscriptural teaching which
arises within its midst, as well as when it does not expel from its
fellowship persistent teachers of false doctrine who refuse to retract
their error, but permits the leaven of false doctrine, unretracted,
to continue working in its midst. In such a body the demands
for doctrinal discipline made by minority groups bring no results
(“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Purge out therefore the old leaven.” 1 Cor. 5:6-7; cf. Gal. 5:9, “Now
I beseech you . . . avoid them,” Rom.16:17. Nove: A unionistic
body does not always as such formally resolve to permit false
teachings to remain within its fellowship. The membership as
such is often ignorant of what is going on, because responsible
‘officials keep the full facts from the membership as such, e.g., the
U. L. C. A., as described by Dr. Theo. Graebner in The Problem
of Lutheran Union; the General Council, as described in the Pro-
ceedings of the Synodical Conference, 1875, p. 13 ff.); and

Wuereas, The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod now has
the distinctive characteristics of a unionistic fellowship, as is shown
by the following facts:

1. “A Statement,” September, 1945, in conjunction with its
explanatory brochure, Speaking the Truth in Love, sets forth the
following false doctrines:

A. That deviation in doctrine or practice from certain teach-
ings of the Bible (“details of doctrine”) is not divisive of church
fellowship.

B. That not all acts of joint religious work and worship with
persistent teachers of false doctrine or their adherents are to be
regarded as religious unionism forbidden by God’s Word.

C. That any two or more Christians may meet and pray
together if they do so for a good purpose.

D. That Rom. 16:17-18 is not to be applied to all Christians
who differ from us in certain points of doctrine, but that this
passage is limited in its application to those who are not Chris-
tians. (Cf. Speaking the Truth in Love.) (The above-mentioned
doctrines are contrary to God’s Word in Rom. 16:17-18; Matt. 7:15;
1 Tim. 6:1-5; etc. Compare also the Scriptural position of the
Missouri Synod set forth in: The Formula of Concord, Concordia
Triglotta, p. 1095; Pieper, Chr. Dogm., pp. 486—492; Mueller, Chr.
Dogm., pp. 556—560; Synodical Catechism, Qu. 186D and 326D;
Brief Statement, Par. 28—29; Constitution of Synod, Articles XI
and 1.11.)

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 611

2. These doctrinal errors have been allowed to stand unre-
tracted within our fellowship. Note the following facts:

A. Although he has admitted publicly that “A Statement”
contains doctrinal aberrations as the words read, the President
of Synod nevertheless made an “Agreement” with the signers of
“A Statement” which declares: “‘A Statement’ shall be withdrawn
as a basis of discussion” and further: “This withdrawal shall not
be interpreted as a retraction.”

B. Synod, in convention assembled in 1947, did not correct
this “Agreement,” reported to it by its President.

C. The mere reaffirmation of Synod’s Brief Statement, which
sets forth the true doctrine in a positive way, did not remove the
errors introduced into our Synod by “A Statement.” Since this
action was not followed by a specific rejection of the errors which
conflict with the doctrine of church fellowship set forth in the
“Brief Statement,” truth and error now stand side by side within
our synodical fellowship; the truth by a formal resolution of
Synod, the error by a lack of God-pleasing action against it.

3. As a result of the fact that “A Statement” has been allowed
to stand unretracted within our fellowship, the doctrinal errors
set forth therein have continued to be taught officially within our
Synod. Note the following facts:

A. The Lutheran Witness, official publication of the Missouri
Synod, has made propaganda for the false doctrines set forth in
“A Statement,” in the following instances: February 25, 1947, p. 59,
Footnote 10; December 30, 1947, p. 427; December 14, 1948, p. 414.

B. Dr. Theodore Graebner’s Prayer Fellowship, sold by Con-
cordia Publishing House, with official approval, teaches contrary
to what the plain words of Rom. 16:17 say, limiting the applica-
tion of this passage to “enemies of Christ,” p. 4.

C. In an essay read at the Southern California and the Cali-
fornia and Nevada Districts of Synod Dr. W. Arndt declared
that the false positions held by the American Lutheran Church
on the “visible side” of the Church, the Antichrist, the Resurrection
of the Martyrs, and the Conversion of the Jews are merely questions
of interpretation or terminology in the face of the fact that Synod
in its Brief Statement rejects these teachings as unscriptural.
In the same essay he also continues to advocate the unscriptural
position of Point 11 of “A Statement” that “church fellowship is
possible without complete agreement in details of doctrine and
practice which have never been considered divisive in the Lu-
theran Church.”

4. As a result of the fact that “A Statement” has been allowed
to stand unretracted within our fellowship, the doctrinal errors