# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S239
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

_ > Intersyriodical and Doctrinal Matters ==s—=ts«89

: Ww are in full agreement with the thought that. the continued

iation of the American Lutheran Church with the other synods
of the: American Lutheran Conference constitutes a very real ob-
ste e to the proposed union. But since the-report does not commit .
tself on a number of points: that to us seem most important, we
ask the following specific questions:

. 1, According to the report of the chairman of the American
Lutheran Church Commission, no more was achieved in their
ymeetings with the Executive Committee of the American Lutheran
Conference in the way. of doctrinal discussion than to register the
‘request. “that this subject be kept on the agenda of the American
Lutheran Conference committee” — and this after they had been
“told .. . that such discussion would be altogether useless.” Are
you ready to agree to such an indefinite postponement of. the
American Lutheran. Church’s pledge? We ask this because a
-ptomise of early action was implied by the resolutions of the
‘Detroit Convention (“We entertain the confident hope that our -
sister synods‘in the American Lutheran Conference will occupy
the same ground in these matters now occupied by us”), follow-
ing ‘similar statements by the American Lutheran Church Com-
missioners in the conclusion of their Declaration (“We recognize
it as our duty to do what we can to bring about the acceptance of
these doctrinal statements by the bodies with which swe are now
in church fellowship”). The fulfillment of this condition, which ©
surely is'a sine qua non to the Missouri Synod, now seems very
remote. ;

2. Are you ready‘to accept the implication that the objections '
raised by the representatives of the American Lutheran Con. |
ferencg (“that the anti-Missouri feeling was at too high a pitch”)
are something that you could in good conscience “help to re-
move?” We ask this because to the best of our knowledge the
“unfavorable attitude” toward your body in American Lutheran
- Conference circles is due to your insistence on purity of doc-

trine, e.g., in such important articles as the Inspiration of Scrip- |
ture, etc. : ,

3. Shall we conclude that the discussions of doctrinal differ-
‘ences between you and the American Lutheran Church are a closed
chapter and that you are definitely committed to the Resolutions |
of 1938 as a settlement of.the doctrinal controversies between the
two synods? We ask this because of the disturbing reference in
the report of May 11 to the question of unionism as “precisely ...
the obstacle” that keeps the synods apart, because of the equally
disturbing silence on doctrinal obstaclés, and. because of the re-
iterated reference to “our (Missouri and A. L. C.) common: doc-
trinal position.” a