# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S107
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 107

Theses. We do not accept the Brief Statement except as inter-
preted in the light of our own Declaration. And yet Missouri
defends the Common Confession as a “settlement in good faith”
and a sufficient basis for church fellowship.

Missouri was willing to enter into church fellowship with the
A. L.C. in spite of that body’s frank approval of confessional docu-
ments that Missouri does not accept and in spite of A. L. C.’s deter-
mination to remain linked with the bodies comprising the Am.
Lutheran Conference. Missouri’s continued wooing of the A.L.C.
in spite of that body’s intimate relations with errorists, we say, is
a clear example of a unionistic spirit.

If we look back to 1938, we can say with conviction that if
obstacles had not been put in its way, Missouri would long since
have entered into altar and pulpit fellowship with the A.L.C.
Other members of the Synodical Conference would have been
dragged along into that union if they had not raised objection.
And today we should, in all likelihood, have been discussing an
extension of the merger to include the E.L.C. and the United
Lutheran Church and membership in the World Council of
Churches. What prevented the 1938 plan from being carried out?
It was the objections of Wisconsin, of the Norwegian Synod, and
of that minority of the Missouri Synod that was so overwhelmingly
outvoted in Milwaukee. In the absence of those three protesting
groups the union movement would have proceeded inexorably.
Missouri would continue to say: We have not changed our doc-
trine or our practice. The A. LC. would say with equal firmness:
Neither have we changed our doctrine or our practice. And yet they
agree on the Common Confession. The Brief Statement is fine,
they say, but we can’t agree on it; so let’s agree on something else.
The Common Confession served that purpose.

The Communion Agreement

The Communion Agreement with the National Lutheran
Council has also been named as a unionistic practice. It must be
granted that an Army chaplain who must minister in various ways
to men of many faiths, or a worker in a service center conducted
jointly with unaffiliated synods, will encounter many embarrassing
situations if he does not co-operate fully with other Lutherans,
will have to answer endless questions, and will be looked upon as
narrow and unco-operative if he adheres closely to the practice
observed at home.

The Communion Agreement is defended in the second Fra-
ternal Endeavor in these terms: “Does not the setting up of an
agreement indicate a weakening in practice? It might in civilian
life, but the very opposite is the case in the military. In the mili-
tary, especially in time of war when soldiers move into battle
lines, exceptional cases occur quite frequently, and that fact might
have a tendency to make out of exceptions a rule and thus break
down the practice of the church. The articles of agreement, how-
ever, declare that these cases, in spite of frequency, are neverthe-
less exceptional cases and must ever be regarded as such and never
be abused to break down the regular practice of the church.”

As proof that no unionism is involved the same article quotes
this provision of the agreement: “That the spiritual welfare work