# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S75
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ey. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 15

pravity of natural man, the sin of false worship, the evil of false
doctrine. The Gospel would be compromised in the all-important
field of youth training. Now, all this will make no impression at all
on him who maintains there is absolutely nothing objectionable
in Scoutism. But to those who have objections to certain religious
features in the movement it ought to mean that they dare not
condone objectionable features in Scouting with the thought that
these can be corrected in the church troop. Tf Scouting is altogether
acceptable, then so are church troops. If Scouting is objectionable
because of elements of false religion, then it remains so also in
a church-sponsored troop.

A final point to be considered is the question:

IV. Has the Missouri Synod Changed Its Position on Scouting

The question is not raised in order to provoke feelings of
discomfort, nor does it imply that a church body is to be faulted in
every case when it changes its position. We in the Wisconsin Synod
are still thanking God for using the Missouri Synod to help guide
our founding fathers from the path of indifferentism onto the way
of conservative, confessional Lutheranism. But the question has
been raised repeatedly since 1944. It receives considerable atten-
tion in the Scouting article in Another Fraternal Endeavor. And
it is of some interest to the Wisconsin Synod because it feels
strongly that its plea to the sister synod for joint testimony against
Scoutism is not an unwarranted demand, but simply the request
for a return to a position but recently abandoned. The Missouri
Synod, on the other hand, maintains that its position has not
changed and that a change in Scouting is the explanation for its
1944 resolutions.

Has Scouting or the Position of the Missouri Synod Changed?

But as late as 1938 and after years of dealing with Scout
authorities the Missouri Synod resolved: “Because of the naturalis-
tic and unionistic tendencies still prevalent in the Boy Scout move-
ment, membership in non-Lutheran or sectarian troops cannot be
sanctioned” (Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1938, p. 341). This reso~
lution is preceded by one stating that Scout authorities had “so
modified their position as to grant to the individual congregation
complete control of its troops,” and followed by another, that con-
gregations be provided “with an educational and recreational
program that will attract the interest of our youth and thus coun-
teract the inclination to affiliate with the Boy Scout organization.”
Though at this time there may have been “neither unanimity of
opinion nor conformity of practice’ (A Fraternal Word, p. 13),
though there was assurance of local sovereignty over the church
troop, yet there was testimony against objectionable “naturalistic
and unionistic tendencies still prevalent in the movement,” and
countermeasures were urged to discourage affiliation with Scout-
ing. In 1941 a committee report was adopted by the Missouri
Synod to the effect that “nothing was brought to its attention
which would at this time call for either a more favorable or un-
favorable treatment of the Boy Scout movement than the one
outlined in... the 1938 Proceedings” (Missouri Synod Proceed-
ings, 1941, p. 418f.).

ce WAR AREY PERENNIAL NN NM RO RT OEE EEE: AIEEE EM IE EN LM IE