Collection › Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1954 · 43rd Convention, East Detroit › Page 79
Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 79
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Scan from Albert Collver's files (LCMS President's Office / CCM)
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 79
Ill. EVEN IN A CHURCH-TROOP SCOUTING RETAINS ITS
OBJECTIONABLE CHARACTER.
A. The Authority of the Local Sponsor is Limited.
1. The local sponsor cannot discard the objectionable man-
datory elements of Scouting.
2. The local sponsor can only correct errors privately that
are fostered elsewhere.
B. The Evils That Are Unavoidable When Congregations Spon-
sor Troops.
1. The church troop must accept responsiblity for the errors
of Scouting.
2. The confession of the-church is contradicted.
IV. THE MISSOURI SYNOD HAS CHANGED ITS POSITION
ON SCOUTING.
A. A Comparison of Its 1938—1941 and 1944 Resolutions on
Scouting.
1. The 1938 and 1941 resolutions were unfavorable; the 1944
resolutions, favorable.
2. Changes in Scouting, referred to as a reason for this
change of position, were in effect before 1938 and have
not removed the most serious faults of Scouting.
B. A Plea for a Return to the Former Position.
1. Scouting still has objectionable religious features.
2. We ought to stand together in testifying against them.
The Boy Scouts of America and the Military
Chaplaincy
M. ScHARLEMANN, Pu. D.
My assignment is to present as clearly and concisely as pos-
sible the position of the Missouri Synod on the two questions known
as the Boy Scouts of America and the Military Chaplaincy. These
two problems, it should be added, do not necessarily belong to-
gether. Their ingredients differ considerably. Each one, however,
represents an area of difference in point of view between the Joint
Synod of Wisconsin and The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.
I. The Boy Scouts
We shall take up the question of the Boy Scouts of America
first. It is very important to understand exactly what the position
of the Missouri Synod is in this matter. Its present approach has
its source in the resolution adopted by the Saginaw Convention
in 1944; namely, “that the matter of scouting should be left to the
individual congregation to decide and that, under the circum-
stances, Synod may consider her interests sufficiently protected.”
This resolution must be understood for what it means and
for what it does not mean. This is no blanket approval of the Boy