# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1953_S1167
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Some have a
Missouri Synod for “the sake a

[ For the sake of the truth and

renounced mem
onscience,”

Nore: A statement of our Teasons for rejecting the Common

: ¢ s,s
Confession as inadequate is In the hands of President B
ehnken,

In thi i
this connection Synod considered a

Report from th
e Norwegian S
Ynod of
American Evangelical Lutheran Churck °
(Unprinted Memorial 55)

At its conventi i
ion in
Norwegian Synod of Araakato,

adopted the following
“We adopt the r
e
The Lutheran Church
at Houston, Tex., in 1953.”
The commi
follows:

May 29 to Jun
the American Evangelical Luth Pea ee
resolution: oran Church
ort of our Union Committee

D and i
tssouri Synod, in conven soem

tion assembled

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 537

» of our sister synod’s (Missouri’s) own resolutions of 1941
her union committee is instructed as follows: ‘Since the
‘jical Conference has asked us “earnestly to consider the
ability of bringing about the framing of one document of
ement,” and since it has become quite evident that it is not
jJesirable, but necessary to have one document, our committee
cted to make every possible effort that such one document

?

»“Accordingly, our Synod in all good faith acted on the Common
nfession as a complete document which was ready and prepared
ur conscientious study and reaction. We did not act on the
ument as then being incomplete or as though the Missouri
d regarded it as the first rung in reaching doctrinal agreement
with the A.L.C. That we were right in regarding it as we did has
en proved by the Missouri Synod’s own official committee, which
Stated to us that as of June, 1950, the Common Confession was
an adequate and satisfactory settlement of the doctrines there
“treated. At its 1950 convention, The Lutheran Church — Missouri
% Synod also adopted the following statement (Resolution 14):
‘Resolved, that we rejoice and thank God that the Common Con-
“sfession shows that agreement has been achieved in the doctrines
treated by the two committees.’” We have since had no indication
“of any kind from the Missouri Synod’s committee or the officials
‘that there has been any recession from this position. In disregard
* of this first instruction, a tentative Part II of the Common Con-
‘fession has been prepared.‘to meet the objections raised against

the Common Confession.’ (Proceedings of the Synodical Confer-

ence, 1952, page 160.) .

“The Missouri Synod resolutions, 1941, continue (italics ours):
‘... in preparing this one document, our committee prayerfully
and carefully consider all the misgivings and objections that have
been expressed in memorials presented to this convention or
otherwise; and that this document be so clearly written that there
can be no misunderstanding in reference to the meaning which:
the words are to convey.’ .

“Our Synod’s resolutions: of 1951 and overture to the Synod-_
ical Conference in 1952 show that this instruction also has not
been fulfilled in the Common: Confession. The Synodical Confer-
ence Proceedings of 1952, pages 159, 160, also emphasize this point.
‘Not all brethren of the Synodical Conference are persuaded that
the Common Confession is adequate as a settlement of the doc-
trinal differences between the Missouri Synod and the American
Lutheran Church.’

“The Missouri Synod resolutions, 1941, continue (italics ours):

‘In calling for one document, we do not mean to dispense with any .

een