Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1969 · 48th Convention › Page 143
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1969, Page 143

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

CHURCH RELATIONS 143

should and must be dealt with in order to restore our
church again to the teaching of the Bible as the iner-
rant Word of God; and

Wuereas, The ALC also has similar and even greater
problems in their own church organization regarding
the problems of teachings and practice, interpretations,
etc.; and

WuereEas, Entering into fellowship with the weak-
ened ALC and LCA would not strengthen but would
in fact weaken our stand on purity of doctrine and
practice; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod delay any actual pulpit and altar fellowship until
we resolve problems of lodge membership, doctrinal
difficulties, and problems in practice: and be it further

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod by all means take these points up first of all
in our own Synod and after that with The American
Lutheran Church and then with the Lutheran Church

in America. BETHANY LUTHERAN CHURCH

Port Orchard, Wash.
Joun F, Beck, President

(3-134)

Not to Declare Fellowship with The ALC
at This Time

WHerEAS, There are many members of our beloved
Synod who are persuaded that a consensus for God-
pleasing fellowship with the American Lutheran Church
does not exist; and

Wuergas, Such basic issues causing division between
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod and The
American Lutheran Church as the doctrine of the Holy
Scriptures, including the inspiration, inerrancy, and
authorship of the Scriptures; the difference in lodge
practice; the relationship of The ALC with the LCA;
and ALC membership in the LWF and WCC have not
been resolved; therefore be it

Resolved, That there be no declaration of fellowship
with The American Lutheran Church until these vari-
ous issues have been resolved; and be it further

Resolved, That congregations, members, and com-
mittees continue to discuss these issues in an attempt
to arrive at a true consensus in matters of doctrine and
practice which will eventually lead to a God-pleasing

declaration of fellowship with The American Lutheran

Church. St. Joun LutHERAN CHURCH

Fredonia, Wis.
ARTHUR SENN, Pastor

(3-135)

Not to Declare Fellowship at This Time

WuereEas, The Denver convention of The Lutheran
Church — Missouri Synod is to deal with the matter
of altar and pulpit fellowship with The American Lu-
theran Church; and

Wuereas, The convention will be asked to approve
this fellowship; and

WHEREAS, Scriptural fellowship requires unity of
doctrine and practice (“Can two walk together except
they be agreed?” Amos 3:3; “I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them,”
Rom. 16:17); and

Wuereas, On the basis of three circulated essays the
assumption is made that a basis for altar and pulpit fel-
lowship with The American Lutheran Church exists;
and

Wuereas, Published books and other publications of
individuals in the colleges and seminaries of The Amer-
ican Lutheran Church show a different position on
revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture than
our Synod has held, e.g., Warren Quanbeck, Luther
Seminary, “The Bible” in Theology in the Life of the
Church, ed. Robert Bertram: “Men recognize also that
the scientific outlook of the writers was that of their
time and could not be a substitute for present-day
scientific investigation and experiment” (p. 23); “A sec-
ond axiom was also challenged: the assumption that
truth can be expressed adequately in propositional
form” (p. 25); Harris Kaasa, Luther College, Theologi-
cal Perspectives, “A second fateful point in the theology
of Orthodoxy was its formulation of the doctrine of the

inerrancy of scripture.... But in asserting inerrancy —
and by inerrancy is meant the inerrancy in all respects
(religious, geographical, historical, scientific) — they

claimed something which the Bible does not claim for
itself” (pp. 17—18); Carl Lose, ibid.: “This creation
account of Genesis is therefore the greatest piece of
de-mythologizing in all literature” (p. 52); Gerhard
Forde, ibid.: “Inspiration in this view refers to the en-
tire activity of the Spirit by which he dwells in the
Church and attends the proclamation of the word... .
The question therefore of whether or not there may
be human errors of one sort or another in scripture
is of no particular importance” (p. 32); Charles S. An-
derson, Luther Theological Seminary, The Reformation
Then and Now: “We add to the offense of the Gospel
when we insist on presenting it in ancient dress. For
example, the biblical writers inspired by God to present
his Word, his answer, wrote against the background
of their view of the world. Their ideas of science, e. g.
of geography, are not essential to the Christian answer:
they are not relevant; in some instances they are not
even correct” (p. 104); William H. Weiblen, Wartburg
Seminary, The Bible: Book of Faith: “The Word of
God dare not simply be equated with the words of the
Eible. Nothing leads to greater misunderstanding of
biblical inspiration than this false equation” (p. 143);
“The infallibility of the Scriptures is the infallibility
of Jesus Christ and not the infallibility of the written
text” (p. 148; “Inspiration of the Scriptures is priinarily
a statement of faith about the effective working of the
Holy Spirit,” (loc. cit.); Philip A. Quanbeck, Augsburg
College, When God Speaks: “The writers of the Bible