LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1962, Page 194

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

194 UNPRINTED MEMORIALS

Wuereas, It is a thoroughly documented fact that
many of the translators of the Revised Standard Ver-
sion have been affiliated with Communist-front organi-
zations and have refused to admit that they erred in
joining such organizations; and

Wuereas, The modernistic views of these translators
are frequently reflected in the text of the Revised Stand-
ard Version (Isaiah 7:14; Philippians 2:6; Romans 9:5);
therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod refuse to authorize the
publication of the above mentioned catechism, Bible
history textbook, and a new Sunday school memory
course which would use the text of the Revised Standard
Version; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod direct the Board of Parish
Education and the Advisory Committee on English Bible
Versions to refrain from distributing pro-RSV propa-
ganda material published by the Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of Churches.

Norman W. TuHets, Taylor, Mich.

[716]

To Prohibit the Use of the Workbook
“Adventuring in the Church”
for Catechetical Instructions, ete.

Wuereas, Each congregation has and retains the
right to determine the orthodox books of worship and
instruction to be used in its midst; and

Wuereas, We as concerned parents desire to register
our protest of the use of the introduction of the work-
book entitled Adventuring in the Church, designed pri-
marily for confirmation instruction for catechumens of
our church; and

Wuereas, Such a workbook has been introduced and
is being used in our circles; and

Wuereas, The use of this workbook may well be in-
tended as a preliminary to its full adoption for use in
the Missouri Synod within the immediate future; and

Wuereas, We must at this time bring strong and
valid objections to this book in particular and to all
other similar material in general for the following
reasons:

1. It does not show purity of doctrine in the most
precise form of communication.

2. Contains irreverant comparison. Examples — pre-
sents God as a “ruling robot,” “tough Sergeant,” “Grand-
father.” This is contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:13, in which
God tells us to compare “spiritual things with spiritual.”

3. Reduces the miracles of Christ to fables and stories
and therefore minimizes the miracles and emphasizes
unimportant details. Example — page 183. Reference is
made to the young lad who furnished Jesus with the
bread and fish from whence He fed thousands. The
lad is described as having a lunch of “homemade rolls”
and “pickled sardines.”

4. There are no Scriptural references in the work-
book to support teachings.

5. Denies the immortality of the soul. Page 148:
“For, as Christians, we believe in the resurrection of
the body and not in the Immortality of the Soul,
a teaching sometimes taken over from Greek phi-
losophy.” This is contrary to Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes
12:7; 1 Samuel 18:1; 1 Kings 18: 21-22; Matthew 10:28;
and Acts 7:59. Also the Smalcald Articles and the For-
mula of Concord.

Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod prohibit the use of the
workbook Adventuring in the Church for catechetical
instruction; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod direct Concordia Con-
cordia Publishing House to refrain from publishing
this or similar workbooks; and be it further

Resolved, That we promote the use of Dr. Martin
Luther’s Small Catechism, retaining the King James
text, for catechetical instruction.

Mrs. Diretra L. SparKs
Mr. Henry W. ScHaar
Mrs. Henry ScHaar
Mrs. Harry Burr

Mrs. ELMer Koop

Mr. ELMER Koop

Mrs. Betty ELuiorr
Mr. Sipney E. Sparks

(See also Unprinted Memorial 357, Committee 3, page
181)

[717]
Letter Concerning Memorial 352
Dear FRIEND mv OuR ONLY Savior:

According to the last issue of our Lutheran Witness
you have the responsibility of serving on an important
floor committee for our Cleveland convention.

I believe that the implications of our congregation’s
memorial (No. 352) is a part of your consideration.
Since I am not a delegate, permit me to share with you
our sincere concern.

We realize that much time, effort, and painstaking
scholarship has been devoted to the translation and
scrutiny of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible —
to give it the popularity that it is enjoying.

And yet if you will casually check Galatians 3:16 you
will agree with us that St. Paul, inspired by the Holy
Ghost, does not permit what the RSV has done to
Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; and Acts3:25. This to us
is critically serious because the translators substitute
Jewish opinion for the clear promises of the Savior,
virtually nullifying God’s plan for salvation in their
version of the Old Testament.

Since modern theology denies the Old Testament
Messianic promises, patient wisdom requires that our
Synod waits with approving the New English Bible for
corporate worship until their O. T. version appears.

We believe that we are here dealing with the very
basic and central doctrine of Scripture. Hence our
Synod is Scripturally bound to assume full responsibil-
ity in advising what version can be used in corporate
worship and as prooftexts in our catechism. Like in all
other Scriptural doctrines the congregations and their
pastors are evangelically bound by the Sacred Scrip-