# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S67
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 67

1945 ed., where (pp. 302f.) he says: “A Christian pastor should
not officiate at the funeral of a person concerning whom at the
time of his death there was no evidence of his being a Christian
(or, self-evidently, who at the time of his death was a member
of another congregation, either orthodox or heterodox). ... It must
be remembered that, whenever a Christian pastor officiates at a
funeral, he is always officially representing his Christian con-
gregation. The pastor should bear in mind that he is not an under-
taker, nor should he grace a funeral with his official presence
merely to satisfy the people.” We would expect that these prin-
ciples would also be applied by chaplains, especially since they
may either “conduct or arrange for appropriate burial services”
(Manual, p. 7). But the chaplaincy article in Another Fraternal
Endeavor propounds a different set of standards and a new burial
practice when it says: “As for funerals in particular, he [the
chaplain] is at liberty to arrange the ceremonies as he sees fit.
If it was an individual to whom he can conscientiously give a
Christian, even a Lutheran, funeral, he may do so. If he does not
feel free to officiate, he may refer the case to another chaplain who
is willing and does not find it contrary to his convictions. If it was
an unbeliever, he can refer, or use a very brief strictly military
interment without any indication of a Christian burial and there-
fore without denial of the faith.” (Another Fraternal Endeavor,
p. 57.) This language is different from that spoken in the quotation
from Pastoral Theology.

Furthermore, participation in the chaplaincy system has to
a large extent given rise to the “Articles of Agreement” between
the Missouri Synod and the National Lutheran Council regarding
Communion in the Armed Services, whereby, in exceptional cases,
there can be administration and reception of Communion without
regard to synodical affiliation. If there has been one matter of
doctrine and practice on which all in the Synodical Conference
were in times past agreed, it was the principle that altar fellowship
should not be granted to those who are not in doctrinal agreement
with us. Any contrary course was recognized and opposed as
unionism. But it is that contrary course for which the “Articles
of Agreement” provide. These Articles are defended on the grounds
that they deal only with “exceptional cases,” which can also arise
in civilian life (cf. Articles, par. 7). No doubt every pastor is
confronted by exceptional cases regarding the administration of
the Lord’s Supper and, when they arise, he will strive to deal with
them in an evangelical spirit. But the faithful pastor does not feel
called upon to make Communion agreements with others on the
basis of these exceptional cases, least of all with those who dis-
agree with him in doctrine, in practice, and on unionism. The
Acticles are upheld with the argument that one of their main pur-
pealis “te orevent, througe a mu ation of exceptional cases,

mats SO VSP tac?

etiGe Paes, a@ breaxdew
g : . ~ re gan ak we,