# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S386
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

300 Intersynodical and Doctrinal Matters

1941, “it was the opinion of the brethren of the Norwegian and _
Wisconsin synods that for the present our negotiations with the
American Lutheran Church should be discontinued.” The Synodi-

cal Conference, however, at its meeting in Chicago, in, 1940, took a:
no such action, but resolved, “That the Synodical Conference at aan

this time take no final action in this matter of union but await

further developments. That we ask the Missouri Synod not to .«

enter into fellowship (prayer-, altar-, pulpit-fellowship) with the
American Lutheran Church until matters now objected to by
members of the Synodical Conference have been clarified and until
the whole matter has once more been presented to another meeting
of the Synodical Conference, a policy which has already been
laid down by the Missouri Synod itself.” (1941, p. 198.)

9. Memorial 604 proposes that Synod discontinue our Union
Committee because “the American Lutheran Church has not taken
steps to discontinue their present relationship with the American
Lutheran Conference,” buf that joint conferences may continue
to be held. Memorial 606 asks that “open conferences with the
pastors of the American Lutheran Church for the purpose of dili-
gently and thoroughly studying the doctrines in question” be
continued.

10. No memorials have been received which petition Synod
completely to discontinue negotiations with the American Lu-
theran. Church. Unprinted memorials have been received from
23 individual pastors, 27 congregations, 11 pastoral conferences,
representing a cross-section of our Synod, the English District,
1 men’s club, 1 circuit, and the L. L. L. urging Synod to continue
negotiations with the American Lutheran Church.

11. Memorial 604 says:

“In order to ward off a misconception of the 1938 resolutions,
we reaffirm our position that anything which is taught in the Bible
can never be considered as non-essential for church-fellowship
and that accordingly we regard the distinction of fundamentals
and non-fundamentals as easily confusing in the discussion of
church-fellowship, since to urge it in this connection may open the
way for abuse in the interest of Liberalism and unionism. Our
Church has ever refused to draw any of the following conclusions:

“1, That this distinction establishes a difference between things
in the Scriptures that are to be believed and others that need
not be believed;

“2. That orthodoxy is concerned only with the fundamental
articles;

“3. That departure from the Scriptural doctrine in non-funda-
mental points is to be condoned.” (1941, pp. 203—204.)

12, The Synodical Conference asks that we “earnestly consider