# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S21
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 21

time when the Missouri Synod has been officially represented at
meeting or convention in a discussion of the Common Confession
have we heard any admission of our charge that the presentation
of Part Lis not an adequate settlement of the doctrinal con-
troversies which existed in the past between the contracting church
bodies. The writer of “An Analysis and Evaluation of Certain
Charges Made against the Common Confession” in Missouri’s
Another Fraternal Endeavor, after cautioning us not to press the
interpretation of the word “settlement” to mean more than it can
mean (p. 7), proceeds to take up the various doctrines which our
Committee has declared inadequate and attempts to prove how
every one of our charges is absolutely groundless, how Part I
adequately safeguards the orthodox position in every respect, both
in its positive statements and in its antitheses.

All this simply bears out the fact that our Committee on
Church Union was not jumping to any hasty conclusions in their
understanding of the Missouri Synod’s resolutions. Part I of the
Common Confession is a settlement of the doctrinal differences
which have hitherto divided The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod from the American Lutheran Church. To eliminate once and
for all every bit of doubt on this matter, we quote the opening para-
graph of A Fraternal Word, officially prepared and widely cir-
culated throughout our Synodical Conference circles: “When The
Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in 1950 adopted the Common
Confession, it did so in the conviction, which it still holds, that
the Common Confession represents a settlement of the doctrinal
differences which have hitherto divided it from the American
Lutheran Church. At the same time, The Lutheran Church —
Missouri Synod provided for the allaying of doubts and misgivings
on the part of its own membership or of sister synods by resolving
that additional statements made necessary by further study or
future developments might be submitted by way of clarification
and expansion.” (A Fraternal Word, p.3.) The meaning is clear.
The settlement of doctrinal differences is found in Part I. Other
parts might be added to allay doubts and misgivings and to provide
for future developments. ;

Certainly this settlement is not absolute and final in the sense
that actual fellowship has been entered into by the two church
bodies. Our Committee has never pressed the word to include this
thought. Certainly it is a “settlement in good faith,” if one wishes
to call it such, pending certain developments which must be taken
care of before actual church fellowship can be consummated.
One wonders, however, whether or not this “good faith” is war-
ranted in the case of a church body which extends the hand of
fellowship in two directions at the same time, as the American
Lutheran Church is doing today. One wonders whether or not
this “good faith” is in order when dealing with such as say that
it is neither necessary nor possible to agree in all nonfundamental
doctrines, and as include in these so-called nonfundamental doc-
trines such as are clearly set forth in the Word of God. One
wonders whether or not such a “settlement in good faith” becomes
a matter of breaking faith with those who in clear. language hold
to the wording of the Brief Statement, especially when the issues
supposedly settled are in fact not settled.