Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1950, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

8 Proceedings of the Forty-First Convention,

Church of Justification by Faith Alone, or the Church of the Ref-
ormation, and lean instead in this direction or that, our whole
testimony becoming unclear, uncertain, and even false. Since we
are all of human fiesh, we are all tempted.

There are three special areas where it is apparent that God
is tempting us: the doctrines of Unionism, of Prayer, of the Church
and the Ministry. When we add the questions of the Chaplaincy
and the Boy Scouts, these are only as phases of the others. Let
us analyze briefly.

1. As to the doctrine of Unionism. Let no one say that this
difficulty is one that affects only one synod. All of us will grant
that the appeal of closer recognition of, and association with, other
Lutherans with whom we are not agreed doctrinally, is a strong
appeal, for these groups include many a relative and friend whom
we love dearly. But let those who would carry this wish through
to actual accomplishment ask the old question: “Can two walk
together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3.) Let them examine
the Word of God and ask whether that Word permits us to rec-
ognize those as brethren in the one holy faith who would fellow-
ship us of the Synodical Conference and at the same time fellow-
ship those who even boast that they are disagreed with us. In the
history of these doctrinal discussions there are developments that
disquiet us: Can we afford to leave out antitheses, which formerly
were considered so important in clearing away misunderstandings
and errors? Is it safe, in formulating union theses, to use fewer
words, quote fewer Bible texts, include fewer points of difference?
We are being tempted to discontinue the use of expressions that
have reached confessional standing among us, as if the mere sound
of them would give offense and the offense might be avoided by
dropping the offensive words. Again, we are tempted to disregard
the historical background of intersynodical disagreements, as if by
the mere adoption of a resolution the present can be commanded
to forget the past or the man made to forget his youth. For as
a child learns by the study of his youthful past, and as a nation
learns by the review of its past, so a Church grows stronger by a
steady avoidance of the pitfalls of the past and by a steady testing
of the ground upon which it stands, by careful and faithful preser-
vation of that which has proved its worth and by the equally faith-
ful avoidance of that which has proved itself to be harmful or
dangerous. It is God who says: “Forget not the voice of thine
enemies” (Ps, 74:23).

Do we grant that a strife has arisen among us between those
who would eliminate and shorten and neglect the lessons of the
past and those who with meticulous care would retain and learn
and remember? Nay, surely, are we not all concerned about this
one thing that we and our beloved Church may not lose the precious
pearl which the Lord of the Church has saved for us all out of a
strife-torn past, by which pearl He would bless the Church of today
as He has blessed by that same pearl the Church of the past? Let
us consider well what we do.

The history of the Church teaches that it is the unionist who
forgets the past and the lessons of the past. It is the unionist who
would shorten and generalize and confuse. .We are not unionists.
It is the faithful Abraham, whom God also today sends as a blessing