# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S74
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

74 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

On swearing by one’s own head Jesus sharply calls attention to
the fact that we cannot even so much as change the color of a single
hair. God created our head, He alone.— This applies also to our honor.

-Our honor is a gift from God. We must thank God for it, but we must

not abuse it. If God should withdraw His support, our honor would fall
to the ground. We cannot uphold it; left to ourselves, we should sink
into shame and disgrace. Before Peter went into the high priest’s palace,
he was strong in his own honor, claiming that he was ready to die for
his Lord. But then his honor vanished into nothing, and he most shame-
fully denied his Savior.

If the phrase On my honor is not to be a meaningless babbling,
if it is not to be an expression of arrogant self-reliance and thus a gross
abuse of God’s gift to us, then it is an implied reference to God, the
Giver and Preserver of our honor. It is an oath, no matter how much
men may try to tone it down.

Let us beware. Let us not trifle with the Name of God. (North-
western Lutheran, July 6, 1947. J. P.M.)

On the basis of these Bible principles regarding oaths we
would, if for no other reason, have to testify against Scouting. And
that is already an answer to a third question that invariably arises
when the pros and cons of Scouting are considered, the question:

III. Is Scouting Unobjectionable
When Carried on in a Church-sponsored Troop?

The question needs to be considered because the Missouri Synod
resolutions on Scouting in recent years have dealt primarily with
the matter of Lutheran Scoutmasters, Lutheran Scout troops, and
the sovereignty of the local congregation, and because the argument
is frequently advanced that there could be no harm in a church
troop since “there is no Boy Scout authority which supersedes the
authority of the local pastor and congregation in any phase of
the movement affecting the spiritual welfare of Lutheran men
and boys in Scouting.”

Church Troops Must Accept Mandatory and Objectionable Features
of Scouting

The obvious advantage of a church troop lies in the authority
of the sponsoring body to apply Scout principles according to its
own belief. But its authority is not so supreme that it can reject
and discard the mandatory oath or promise, law, and slogan which
contain objectionable features. At best the sponsoring body will
have to be satisfied with superimposing its alterations and cor-
rections on objectionable religious elements in Scouting. And it
would even then find itself in the position of sponsoring elsewhere
by moral and financial support of Scouting the very same objec-
tionable religious elements it corrects in the privacy of the church
troop, for membership in a well-known organization like the Boy
Scouts cannot but imply agreement with, and sponsorship of, its
widely publicized oath or promise, law, and slogan and the religious
implications they are known to have.

Church Troops Hinder the Church’s Confession

And then the Church would be doing the very opposite of what
it should. The church-sponsored troop would be a contradiction
of the confession the Church owes the world regarding the de-