# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S132
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

182 CHURCH RELATIONS

to see exist between us and The American Lutheran
Church:

(Note. We offer the two objections below only in
briefest outline though much more complete documen-
tation could be appended and other items listed, such
as unscriptural lodge practice and unionistic tendencies,
as barriers to the unity we seek.)

1. Denial of the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures
(and hence the verbal inspiration of same: we recognize
no dichotomy here).

The infallibility of the Scriptures is the infallibility of

Jesus Christ and not the infallibility of the written text.
(The Bible: Book of Faith, approved by The ALC in 1964)

The American Lutheran Church holds that the iner-
rancy referred to here (in its Constitution) does not
apply to the text but to the truths revealed for our faith,
doctrine and life. (“The Church's Confessional Stand Rel-
ative to the Scriptures” by Dr. Fredrik A. Schiotz, Presi-
dent of The ALC)

2. Acceptance by The American Lutheran Church
(one year after the “Joint Statement and Declaration”
of the official representatives of The American Lutheran
Church and The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
with its three documents, proposed as basis of our unity,
on Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, and the doctrine of the
Church) of a statement entitled “Doctrinal Concerns,”
which completely invalidates all efforts thus far put
forth to sanction our supposed unity. Pertinent to our
memorial, it may suffice to quote in part from “Doctrinal
Concerns”:

(C) The believer's best efforts to formulate a theology
in terms of propositions and statements will fall short.
To assume that the church can arrive at human concepts
or expressions that are in every respect correct is as much

a symptom of pride as to assume that the church or its
members can achieve sinlessness in their daily lives.

(5) Within the great unity all have in Christ as Lord
and Savior, he tolerates and even encourages a plurality
of emphases which indeed adds to the riches of the
church's life.

and

Wuereas, To our minds the above two items, even
if there were no others, are basic and determinative and
contravene the Synod’s resolution that unity “exists”
since (1) the norm for arriving at purity of doctrine is
utterly invalidated in The American Lutheran Church
by such permitted teachings contrary to its Constitution
and (2) even the probability of arriving at a consensus
in articles of faith is challenged, thereby making efforts
at attaining unity with The American Lutheran Church
either useless or on its part highly irrelevant: therefore
be it

Resolved. That we, the members of Grace Church at
San Diego. Calif.. in meeting assembled do hereby peti-
tion the Synod to postpone indefinitely the enactment
of altar and pulpit fellowship with The American Lu-
theran Church. We prayerfully hope that continuing
discussions with The American Lutheran Church can
be set in motion with the view, if that is possible under
The American Lutheran Church's adoption of “Doctrinal
Concerns,” of arriving at a unity in doctrine and prac-
tice that will make altar and pulpit fellowship between

us and The American Lutheran Church truly pleasing
to God and a boon to both church bodies.

Grace LUTHERAN CHURCH

San Diego, Calif.

Rosert P, SEpLocH, President

Gail F. WEHIM, Secretary

JOHN C. JACOBSEN, Pastor

CLARENCE DAMSCHROEDER, Pastor Emeritus
(3-100)

To Postpone Decision on Fellowship
Until Sufficient Consensus
Can Be Demonstrated Scientifically

WHEREAS, Considerable doubt has been expressed
that sufficient consensus in doctrine and practice does
in fact exist to declare fellowship with The American
Lutheran Church; and

Wuereas, It is conceivable that official pronounce-
ments of the respective church bodies or discussions by
representatives of each church body are not sufficient
indicators of the true state of affairs regarding doctrine
and practice in either church body: and

Wuereas, Subsequent to the declaration (in Resolu-
tion 3-23 of the New York convention) that “whole-
hearted consensus in their understanding and procla-
mation of the Gospel” exists, scientifically gathered
evidence has become available, casting real doubt that
such consensus actually does exist at the level of the
pastors of the two respective bodies, particularly with
regard to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures: and

Wuereas, For example, Jeffrey K. Hadden, a recog-
nized sociologist specializing in the sociology of religion,
has reported his findings (in an article in the July-
August 1967 issue of Trans-Action with the significant
title “A Protestant Paradox — Divided They Merge”),
revealing that only 23 percent of the ALC clergy, com-
pared with 76 percent of the Missouri Syned clergy,
agreed that “Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant
Word of God not only in matters of faith but also in
historical, geographical and other matters”; and

Wuereas, A scientific survey completed in 1967 for
other purposes by our pastor, Rev. Harold J. Meleske,
a former professor of sociology at Concordia Senior
College. with the consultation of several members of
the sociology faculty at the University of Southern
California, tends to confirm the reliability of the Hadden
survey of the clergy of our Synod (specifically, the
Maleske survey found that 78 percent of our Synod’s
pastors accepted “the inerrancy and infallibility of the
entire Bible” and 80 percent of them accepted ‘the
verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible”; both doc-
trines, according to the directions in the survey, were
to be understood as traditionally taught in the Synod
and as generally held by Pieper and Mueller in their
respective books entitled Christian Dogmatics); and

Whereas, The Maleske survey also found that 88
percent of our clergy considered the doctrine of ‘the
inerrancy and infallibility of the entire Bible” at least
“of great importance” (72 percent considered it “of