# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S37
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 37

Because of the unsatisfactory nature and content of Part I
of the Common Confession, offered as the only official reply to our
objections raised against Part I, our Synod could come to but one
conclusion at its last convention. In effect the Missouri Synod at
Houston had simply reaffirmed “its acceptance of the Common
Confession as a ‘settlement of past differences which are in fact
not settled’” (Proceedings, 32d Convention, Wisconsin Synod,
1953, p. 104).

Part IV

Our Charge of “Creating a Basically Untruthful Situation”

Up to this point we have spoken primarily of the “inadequacy”
and “ambiguity” of the Common Confession. Our charge has been
that the Common Confession is subject to various interpretations.
It lacks antitheses which call attention to specific errors which are
known to have existed in the past. We say that past differences
of doctrine are left unsettled. But we cannot ignore the implication
which follows. Our resolution at New Ulm also took this next
step when it declared that the adoption of the Common Confession
as a settlement of past differences “involves an untruth and creates
a basically untruthful situation.” Our next resolution asked that
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod _ should “repudiate its
stand that the Common Confession is a settlement of the doctrines
treated by the two committees” (Proceedings, 31st Convention,
Wisconsin Synod, p. 147). .

Missouri’s answer to this last resolution has been “that the
Common Confession need not be repudiated, since Wisconsin does
not show that it contains false doctrine.” Ina meeting of Presidents
of the respective synods, held in January of this year, this answer
was given. It was based upon the premise “that there has been
no accusation by Wisconsin of false doctrine in the Common Con-
fession” and “that Wisconsin is at best making the accusation of
false judgment regarding the adequacy of the Common Confession”
(Meeting of Presidents, Official Minutes, January 13, 1954, p. 4).
A study of the minutes of these meetings shows that this answer
was repeatedly given. (Cf. Minutes, p. 6.) At the conclusion of
the discussion of the Common Confession in these meetings joy
was expressed by the honorable President of the Missouri Synod
over the fact that it was not said “that it contains false doctrine”
(Minutes, May 12, 1954, p. 19). The analysis of our charges set
forth in Missouri’s second Fraternal Endeavor states: “Only if the
Common Confession itself should contain false doctrine, could its
rescission be made a matter of conscience and compulsion” (An-
other Fraternal Endeavor, p. 28).

While it is true that we have not accused the Common Con-
fession of false doctrine in that which it says, we cannot agree
with the above conclusions. “The correctness of a confessional
document,” as a recent article in our Quartalschrift states, “must
be measured by the manner in which it serves the purpose for which
it was written” (“What Constitutes False Doctrine,” E. Reim,
Quartalschrift, April, 1954, p. 86). From the same treatise we
quote: “A confessional document may set forth nothing but Biblical
truths in its various individual parts, and yet fail to meet the issue,
to serve the very purpose for which it was designed” (ibid., p. 87).