# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S100
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

100 . Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

Forces are not to be invited to Communion services conducted by
N.L.C., but are to be sent to our pastors for such service. The
very opposite of unionism there.

3. Point 9 says, and we underscore what is to be emphasized:
“In exceptional cases (we call them cases of casuistry), where a
member of one group earnestly seeks admission to the Lord’s
Supper conducted by a representative of the other group (such
people are not to be solicited to come regardless), the individual
case in each instance will be considered by the pastor concerned.
(The pastor is not to give Holy Communion even in such an excep-
tional case without further ado. He is to consider whether it is
exceptional or not.) It is agreed that in such cases particular
synodical membership of a Lutheran in the Armed Forces shall
not be a required condition for admission to the Lord’s Supper.”
(It is my guess that if that old mother mentioned in the Wisconsin
Synod Tract 10, with whom the Wisconsin Synod pastor prayed,
were dying and her pastor were not available, a Wisconsin Synod
-brother would upon her urgent request give her Holy Communion
and not make membership in the Wisconsin Synod a prerequisite
of communing her.)

This agreement recognizes the fact that there are exceptional
cases and seeks to keep these exceptional cases from becoming the
rule. It strengthens the confessional principle we stand for, that
there is to be no altar fellowship until there is agreement in
doctrine and practice. It restates that rule and asks that this rule
be observed. That is what the E. L. C. Lutheran Herald says, Feb-
ruary 27, 1951: “This Agreement does not mean that we now have
altar fellowship with Missouri.” In this Agreement The Lutheran
Church — Missouri Synod has not receded one whit from what it
has always practiced according to the rule set down and to the
exception given. If the Agreement had been abused, that is another
matter that needs to be dealt with. The Agreement was set up
to close the door to possible abuses, and it can well be used to
help keep these doors closed. Rather than being stigmatized a
“union document,” it is a document that seeks to shut out all
unionism.

“Negotiating for Purposes of Union with a Church Body Whose
Official Position It Is that It Is neither Possible nor Necessary
to Agree in All Matters of Doctrine” (6)

There are two statements emanating from the A. L. C. that our
Wisconsin Synod brethren refer to consistently as proof that “this
position of the American Lutheran Church challenges the clarity
and therefore the authority of the Scriptures (Ps. 119:105).” This,
then, is a unionistic practice, they conclude, that we continue to
negotiate with those people, though they are not agreed with us
that all doctrines clearly taught in Scripture are important and
that for church fellowship there must be agreement in all doctrines.

1. The first statement is part of a resolution passed by the
A.L.C. at their Sandusky, Ohio, meeting in 1938, when they ac-
cepted the Brief. Statement together with the Declaration of their
Commission as a sufficient basis for church fellowship between
Missouri Synod and A.L.C. In one of the paragraphs of that
longer resolution occurs this statement: