# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S35
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 85

Part III

The Further Inadequacy of Part I of the “Common Confession”

In our presentation thus far it will have been noticed that
very little reference has been made to Part II of the Common
Confession. Part II is the official answer given by the Missouri
Synod to those who have raised the charge that Part I is an
inadequate settlement and who have protested against it. The
Houston Convention of the Missouri Synod defines Part II as a
supplement and expansion of Part I. “For purposes of study”
both parts are to be “treated as one document,” with the hope
expressed that such study “may clarify possible misunderstand-
ings encountered in Part I.” (Quotations from Resolution 8 of
Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1953, p. 532.) Since Part II has been
submitted to us with the request that we are “for purposes of
study to treat Part I and Part II of the Common Confession as
one document” (Resolution 19, of Missouri Synod Proceedings,
1953, p. 538), and since this is the only official answer to all our
specific objections to Part I, we would certainly be faulted if
we ignored it completely.

From the very outset let us remember, however, that only
Part I has been adopted by the Missouri Synod. Let us remember
that the resolutions of 1950, which declare Part I to be a “statement
of agreement” between The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
and the American Lutheran Church, have in no way been set
aside. Let us remember that the official interpretation on reso-
lutions pertaining to the adoption of Part I as “a settlement of the
doctrinal differences” which have hitherto divided the two church
bodies has in no way been changed. Part II proceeds from the as-
sumption, as it states in a preamble, that a “common conviction and
testimony regarding the Christian faith’ has been adequately
expressed in the first section. Because this common conviction
“must express itself in the life and corporate activity of the
church,” additional statements are submitted under the title “The
Church in the World.”

It might be construed as poor taste on our part to take excep-
tion to the general arrangement of Part II, with its title and sub-
titles (“The Church’s Mission,” “The Church’s Resources,” “The
Church and Its Ministrations,” “The Church and the Home,”
etc.). This arrangement may lend itself very well to the purpose
the committee had in mind. But one can hardly agree that this
arrangement lends itself very well to a satisfactory answer on
misgivings that have been pointedly expressed on the formulation
of doctrine. The statements on doctrine which do self-evidently
occur are found in an entirely different setting. Our objection to
a statement in Part I under “Justification” is considered answere
by a statement from Part II under the title “The Church and Its
Ministrations” (cf. A Fraternal Word). Our objection to a state-
ment in Part I under the title “Conversion” is considered taken
care of by a statement from Part II under the title “The Church’s
Mission.” And so on. To this method we say that if an objection
is to be answered, we would certainly wish to find the answer
under the title, progression of thought, and direct context of the
subject in question. There also remains the serious question as to
the advisability of considering our objections to specific doctrinal

/