LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1962, Page 36

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

36 DOCTRINAL-DEVOTIONAL ESSAYS

and congregations to admonish such congregations and
pastors as permit the ‘lodge evil’ to exist in their
churches without countertestimony and decisive action.
If, after due investigation, it becomes evident that such
congregations and pastors refuse to remove the offense,
they are to be suspended and eventually expelled from
synodical connection.

“3 Resolved, That we do not deny that a conscien-
tious pastor may under certain conditions (‘in cases
which present unusual features, rendering their classi-
fication difficult,’ Memorial 407, lines 95,96) administer
Holy Communion to a person who is still outwardly
connected with a lodge. But in such a case the pastor
shall earnestly beware of procrastinating and giving
offense, and to this end he shall freely and conscien-
tiously consult with his vestry and congregation, his
brethren in the ministry, and with the officials of Synod,
as the case may require.

“4, Resolved, That Synod hereby declare that the
practice outlined above is Scriptural and truly evan-
gelical.” (Proceedings, 1929, p. 118)

This committee report and the proposed resolutions
were discussed in five different sessions, and the reso-
lutions were adopted with only one minor change, the
deletion of one word.

In addition to the resolutions with respect to synod-
ical policy, the Synod in 1929 established a Bureau of
Information Regarding Secret Orders. This bureau re-
ported to the Synod in 1932: “The Bureau notes with
gratification an improvement in the handling of the
lodge problem by our congregations. ... They uphold
the resolutions of 1929; a vigorous yet evangelical policy
is being maintained.” (Proceedings, 1932, p. 170)

The same Synod was in receipt of memorials re-
garding the Synod’s lodge policy of 1929. One memorial
wanted the policy made even firmer. The other re-
minded the Synod that in the early days the policy had
been Jess rigid with respect to the communing of lodge
members and asked: “Shall we continue to abide by
the original position and practice of our Synod?”

In reply to both memorials the Synod resolved:

“1. That the 1929 resolutions of Synod at River
Forest, adopted unanimously after thorough delibera-
tion, shall stand unchanged as the official declaration
of Synod.

“2 That we all, congregations, pastors, and officials,
earnestly and conscientiously continue to carry the res-
olutions of 1926 and 1929 into effect.”

In 1950 a memorial came before the Synod, asserting
that in some cases lodge members had been communed
from 1929 until 1950, that the pastors in question had
been admonished but that they had done nothing about
it, and that the District officials had declined to take
action.

In response to this memorial the floor committee
quoted the synodical Handbook, 14.03, which summa-
rizes the synodical lodge policy formulated in 1929, and
the Synod then adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved, That we reaffirm this position of Synod
with respect to lodges;

“That we urge all pastors and congregations to exer-
cise great vigilance in this matter;

“That such pastors and congregations as neglect
their duty in this respect be properly admonished ac-
cording to Matthew 18 by fellow Christians, fellow pas-
tors, and District officials; and

“That where all such evangelical dealing with of-
fending pastors or congregations fails, the matter be
taken to the Praesidium of Synod and finally to Synod
itself, if necessary, for proper action.” (Proceedings,
1950, p. 555)

That the resolutions of 1926 and 1929 as embodied
in essence in the synodical Handbook, 14.03, are not
universally followed in the Synod appears also from the
report of the Bureau of Information on Secret Orders
to the same Synod and found on pages 862 and 863 of
the Proceedings:

“While it is to be admitted that the testimony of our
church against lodges is not without effect, so much so
that we may truthfully speak of an antilodge policy of
our Synod, the problem is still with us in all its forms,
and a warning must be sounded against undue tolera-
tion of lodge members as well as against stringent
legalism in dealing with them. We cannot admit that
the situation in the church today is perceptibly different
from that at the beginning of the century. As in the
earlier pioneer decades of our Synod, there is need of
thorough indoctrination of new members, especially of
adult converts, to maintain our position on the lodge,
and it will remain the duty of our pastoral conferences
not to permit the ‘lodge question’ to become a dead
issue in their areas.”

A similar reminder is contained in the President's
triennial report made at Houston and found in the
Proceedings of 1953, p. 11.

A memorial to the Synod at San Francisco in 1959
recommended that the Synod’s lodge policy be changed
to admit lodge members into full membership in our
congregations. See Reports and Memorials, 1959,
p. 493 £.

In answer to this memorial the Synod reiterated its
lodge policy of 1929, affirming that it is correct and
Scriptural and charging the memorial in question with
misapplication of God’s Word and consequent false
conclusions.

The Synod’s lodge policy, as stated in the synodical
Handbook, 14.03, is briefly:

“Synod instructs its officers to exercise vigilant care
and urges all pastors and congregations to admonish
such congregations and pastors as permit the ‘lodge
evil’ to exist in their churches without countertestimony
and decisive action. If after due investigation it be-
comes evident that such congregations and pastors re-
fuse to change their attitude and practice, they shall
be suspended and eventually expelled from Synod.

“Tt is and shall be the practice of the congregations

t
t
;
!
t
i
i