Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1969 · 48th Convention › Page 82
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1969, Page 82

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

82 THEOLOGICAL MATTERS

(2-33)
To Resist Unionistic Practices

Wuereas, Unionism is a constant threat to the church
of the Savior and therefore also a threat to the congre-
gations and pastors of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod; and

Wuenreas, Unionistic practices are at times excused
under the cloak of ecumenism and then openly and at
times even flauntingly admitted to the detriment of the
peace of the church; and

Wuereas, Synodical regulations and _ resolutions
clearly speak out against such unionism (cf. 1941 Pro-
ceedings, p. 303; 1965 Proceedings, p. 98); therefore be it

Resolved, That all of our pastors and congregations
follow the rules to which they are committed by virtue
of their affiliation with the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That all officials speak out in regard to this
divisive tendency and exert themselves to have such
aberrations cease in our midst; and be it finally

Resolved, That if after brotherly admonition and
counseling a congregation or pastor refuses to be guided
in Christian love for the peace of Christ’s church, to
desist from such offensive unionistic practices, they are
to be removed from our fellowship by the proper official
action (cf. Constitution, Article XIII).

ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH

Ada, Minn.

Rocer G. Wiese, President
Raymonp W. STOLTENow, Secretary

(2-34)

To Reject Inter-Lutheran Missionary
Prefield Training

Whereas, The Inter-Lutheran Missionary Pre-ser-
vice Preparation (Resolution of Board for Missions,
May 3—4, 1968, Minutes: 152, b) proposes a joint teach-
ing of our clergy and other workers by a program in
partnership with The American Lutheran Church and
the Lutheran Church in America while the Missouri
Synod’s position and stance on fellowship and unionism
and the Handbook prevent us from undertaking such
a joint teaching effort and only a synodical convention
can resolve such joint work by first declaring fellow-
ship with the ALC and LCA (Handbook, Constitution:
Article ITI, 1, 5, 7; Article VI, 2; Article VIII, C; Article
XI, B, 2; Bylaws, 8.09 and 1.21); and

Whereas, A “Training Committee” consisting of
three members each of the three participating bodies
according to the recently developed “Committee Rules”
are to “govern,” and “relate missionary training to
training programs” for the overseas missions in which
the missionaries will be participating, and to “counsel
with overseas missions” concerning this training, and to
“fulfill other tasks related to missionary training,” all
of which are the responsibility of the Board for Mis-
sions not to be relinquished to a pan-Lutheran commit-
tee where the board has only three representatives to

six of the other participating churches with which we
are not in fellowship; and

Wuereas, A Director of Missionary Training (of an-
other church body) shall be responsible for “planning,
administration, and review” of the program, for recom-
mending “curriculum and instructional staff,” for “en-
gaging instructional staff,” and for evaluating “the per-
formance of personnel enrolled”; and

Wuereas, The document “Inter-Lutheran Missionary
Pre-Service Preparation Objectives” from the board’s
agenda has not even been adopted to date by the
“Training Committee” and not adopted by the partici-
pating bodies (leaving the program without any official
objectives), but yet they are guidelines that speak about
training “for the development of specific skills and ori-
entation of the cultivation of attitudes”; it speaks about
preparing missionaries ‘‘(2) who continue to deepen
their knowledge of the Scripture,” and “(3) who grow
in knowledge and appreciation of Lutheran theology in
the context of World Missions,” and ‘“(4) who under-
stand and apply the practical implications of the doc-
trine of the church in mission — particularly on the
basis of its ecumenical character”; also, (8) who know
and understand the non-Christian religions’; then,
(10) who develop skills in the techniques of witness”;
and

Wuereas, Theology must be included in the joint
training program for non-Christian religions, and the-
ology cannot be presented properly apart from a sensi-
tive treatment of our own Missouri Synod position, nor
could we properly train missionaries in the techniques
of witness in relation to our message when there is a
disagreement in other Lutheran bodies about univer-
salism; nor could there be Scriptural teaching of the
“ecumenical character” when the ALC and LCA are
completely committed to the ecumenical movement in
its institutional form (NCC, WCC, etc.) contrary to the
position which the Missouri Synod holds; theology can-
not be avoided, whether this is applied to a discussion
of anthropology, culture, national religions, history, or
to Lutheran witness to nationals; any training that
would cut out such basic training or its relation to our
theology would be insufficient, inadequate, and a com-
plete concession to an expediency for the sake of ecu-
menical involvement; whether it is a specialized school
or not, the same principle applies; and

Wuereas, The “Theology of Fellowship” document
presents under “C. Suggested Guidelines for the Church
in the Practice of Fellowship”: “2. Our Synod should
work zealously for the extension of this fellowship by
engaging in doctrinal discussions with other churches
in the interest of achieving such fellowship where this
can be done without compromising sound doctrine”; the
point is always one of discussing with other church
bodies and then taking synodical action, not of boards
or congregations selectively deciding to undertake ac-
tual practices which involve fellowship procedures
which the Synod has not adopted; in fact, we read in
“Suggested Guidelines for the Church in the Practice