# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S31
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 31 —

Before a vote could be taken, however, a lengthy debate arose. Pastor B. J. Muus of the Norwegian Synod occasioned it by trying to show that such a protest on the part of the Synodical Conference would involve nothing other than the dissolution of the Synodical Conference; one might just as well pass the resolution: We now want to break up the Conference. He sought to substantiate this thus: The purpose of the Synodical Conference is, among other things, to promote unity in doctrine and practice and to remove disturbances of it that occur. If, then, a dispute in doctrine occurs, where one must say to the other: Dear brother, you teach falsely! how is that to be decided otherwise than by coming together and disputing with one another? Now, I regarded the Synodical Conference as a useful and necessary institution for settling doctrinal disputes between synods, and I joined it honestly and sincerely for this purpose. Now, however, such a case has arisen where one says to the other: You teach falsely! and now one party is to be forbidden by protest to sit here and to speak on the doctrine. Thereby the whole chief purpose of the Synodical Conference is overturned and this body receives quite a different task, and so does not remain the Synodical Conference as hitherto. Therefore let it rather be said honestly outright that one wants to dissolve the Synodical Conference.

To this it was replied: One may not construe our synodical constitution against Holy Scripture. It is quite clear that we have the duty, when someone falls into false doctrine, to dispute with him and try to convince him. But how many times has that been done precisely with Prof. Schmidt! The Missouri Synod, immediately after the outbreak of the controversy, asked the then president of the Synodical Conference to call an extra session of it, so that the matter might be looked into. The then president, however, did not do so. Moreover, consider how repeated offers have been made to Prof. Schmidt to settle the dispute privately. A colloquy was held with him at Columbus as long as three years ago; indeed, even after Prof. Schmidt had already come out publicly with his campaign against the Missouri doctrine, a colloquy was held with him at Milwaukee, and further discussions were offered him even then, on condition that he cease his hitherto hostile polemics. But Prof. Schmidt declared himself not willing to do so. And after he has now come forward as a declared, renounced enemy of our doctrine and synods and has branded us and our doctrine in all the world, indeed has declared us hypocrites and conscienceless, godless men — for whoever says of us (as stands, e.g., in the last number of "Altes und Neues," published early and, as it seems, intentionally much too early) that we have a fox-theology, that obviously means that we are hypocritical, lying, cunning deceivers,