Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 18

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

18 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

Part I

Our Understanding of the Word “Settlement”

Our Synod has protested against the adoption of the Common
Confession by The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod “since this
action has been officially interpreted as a settlement of past dif-
ferences which are in fact not settled.” Perhaps no single word
has raised so much animated discussion, particularly between men
of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods in local areas, as the use
of this word “settlement.” At a mixed conference held in Benton
Harbor, Mich., last December we asked our brethren of the Mis-
souri Synod to answer the question: “In what sense does the
Common Confession constitute a settlement of doctrinal differences
which have hitherto divided The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod from the American Lutheran Church?” The answer we
received can be summarized by a statement often repeated by our
Missouri brethren at this conference: “The Common Confession
settles nothing.” They could not see how the official resolutions of
their synod could be interpreted to mean any such thing. State-
ments were made by several of them to the effect that these nego-
tiations were merely serving to strengthen the hand of conservative
men in the American Lutheran Church and that they would pos-
sibly never experience the day in their lifetime when an actual
union would be consummated between the two negotiating church
bodies. When we of the Wisconsin Synod called attention to the
fact that the use of this word was the official interpretation of their
own Committee on Doctrinal Unity on their synod’s resolutions,
they continued to maintain that as far as they were concerned,
nothing was officially settled, and urged us not to act hastily, but
to await further developments.

We certainly do not question the sincerity of these Missouri
Synod brethren, who happen to be conservative men. We merely
mention this to show the difficulty of discussing the whole matter
of the Common Confession on local levels when we are of such
different opinions as to what this document is supposed to rep-
resent in the first place. We have heard its significance variously
interpreted in other areas as a “progress report of the committees,”
“a first rung in a doctrinal ladder,” a document vaguely described
as “defining an area of doctrinal agreement.” We have been cau-
tioned in the latest appeal by The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod not to press the word “settlement” to mean more than it can
mean. Our attention is called to the fact that official resolutions
of the Missouri Synod allow for “clarification” of the Common
Confession. We are reminded of the fact that a second part has
been added to Part I to be studied with it “as one document.”
We are told that the Constitution of the. Synodical Conference,
which prevents unilateral action by one of its synods, forbids the
interpretation of the word “settlement” to mean that it is absolute
and final. We are urged to regard it as “only . . . a settlement
im good faith,” for only “the carrying out of this agreement with
its provisions can show how final and conclusive this settlement
really was.” (Another Fraternal Endeavor, p. 7.)

In spite of all these words of reassurance and caution on the
part of men of the Missouri Synod, well intended as they might
be, we are of the considered opinion that they only serve to becloud